bfniii

nebuchadnezzar's "failure" doesn't mean the prophecy failed. as i have told you before, you have never, not once, shown that nebuchadnezzar was prophecied to be the ultimate downfall of tyre.

btw, i notice that you cited a link to one of your posts that went on to be refuted in that thread. why didn't you cite my rebuttals? that thread has gone on to be over 400 posts long and you cite post #89?


hey jack, you quoted my response to this point in this very post. i guess you didn't catch on to that. in it, i gave an explanation of how "you" doesn't refer to the island only, as till claimed in the article cited. there's your "rewrite". besides, don't act like we haven't covered that ground in multiple other places as well.

dongiovanni1976x

Alexander did not leave the city uninhabited. He left people there and even appointed a new king to rule over them.

Based upon what? It seems like your desire is the only reason it should be read this way. Especially when Ezekiel has God clearly saying,

right after the two previous verses mentioning Tyre, So why would we assume that this is supposed to be “metaphorical” if Ezekiel refers to Tyre and its citizens (YOU and YOUR inhabitants) and their combined FALL…all which is described throughout the context of Chapter 26.

I need nothing but the substance within chapter 26 to support the fact that Ezekiel was prophesizing against a great city.
It has been argued that America, as the Rome of power, the Paris of culture and the London of commerce, is a lightning rod for invective critiques and I argue that Ezekiel’s vitriolic admonitions against the America of his day attracted the same kind of thunder.
I let the substance speak for itself. You need to make the case for why we should abandon something so clear for something as muddled and contradictory as what you have attempted to present.

dongiovanni1976x

The Slaughter that is going on WITHIN is WITHIN the city of Tyre.

Verse 16 goes on to describe how the other princes of the sea will be This is obviously referring to Tyre, as the mightiest of the princes of the sea.

Verse 17 and 18 go on to describe what these other princes will say about Tyre after it is destroyed:
Immediately after this lamenting Ezekiel informs us of what God has to say about Tyre's fall, Compare the popular conservative Bible translation, the Message, on this verse, What reason do you have for assuming that this is a metaphor for something, especially since you agree that Tyre was to be brought to a dreadful end lost for all posterity (v. 21), it was to vanish from the sea (v. 17) and it was never to be found again (v. 21)....?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
I have proved, repeatedly, that Nebby failed to fulfil what YOU CLAIM to be "his part". And, of course, there never was an "ultimate downfall" (permanent destruction) of Tyre.
I also cited post #163, where you were refuted in more detail the second time around.
Nope, you haven't actually rewritten that section of Ezekiel verbatim with every occurrence of "you" excised and replaced with the appropriate subject. You have merely waffled, and your waffle was refuted by the fact that in this instance (the naming of cities, and the identification of a group of people with the city they inhabit) Hebrew uses the same conventions as English and Ezekiel makes perfect sense even in English (hardly surprising, given the common origin of English-speaking and Hebrew urban civilizations: Mesopotamia and so forth, via the "Classical world").

bfniii

as far as i know, you are correct. what does that have to do with the buildings and structures?



my next statement, which you seem to have avoided quoting. why?



i didn't expect you to respond to my points, but i'll repeat them anyway:

notice verse 20, lots of metaphor there. the "you" is not referring to the physical city, just as "with those" does not either. the text says "desolate city" which certainly doesn't have to refer only to the city physically, especially in the metaphorical context of the surrounding verses.



i have provided multiple responses to this question. altogether, they illustrate where ezekiel is referring to physical objects, political objects and both. do you need me to repeat them?



that is certainly true, but the city is not the only subject, as i have outlined in detail.



muddled and contradictory are subjective designations. some people don't see this analysis the way you do. i can see why you are confused by it, you tend to skip over the details of the analysis and make innocuous demands for evidence for such interpretation when it has already been supplied.

bfniii

not entirely.



but what you don't address is whether this "you" is referring to the physical city, the nation, or both.



ok



i've already addressed this. it's the statements you omitted earlier.



again, this is answered in my responses that you omit. i'm not saying that ezekiel is referring solely to the nation. i'm saying that by examining the original text, we can get an idea of how the overarching message is against the nation of tyre, not the city. he uses symbolic imagery throughout this chapter to illustrate how the destruction of the city and the people and the culture will ultimately lead to the very purpose of the prophecy in chapters 26, 27 and 28.

bfniii

i disagree. i don't think you have even come close to what you claim.



the nation of tyre has not existed since the time of alexander. you are incorrect.



no response to my question?



if you will combine my responses on this subject, you will see that i have indeed addressed the instances of "you" throughout the chapter. you even cited one of those examples in the prior post. in that sense, you are incorrect. i have not waffled one bit. none of my responses have changed one iota. this is merely more obfuscation on your part to artifically elongate the thread and to give you more opportunities to claim phantom "victories".

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Certainly the claim is there, but the response has also been posted repeatedly, that Neb made no profit, which does not mean that Tyre was undefeated, or that Neb got nothing at all in return.

Not in an unknown location necessarily (please see my reponse to Gullwind), but otherwise, yes.

I’m impressed! Though that’s not a tourist agency, nor a civic web site but a hotel web page (I assume sites with names like Lebanon.com would tend to be more motivated to being circumspect). But I sent them an email: “I was wondering about a quote on your website, mentioning ‘... remains of the Phoenician wall of the city’ in the imperial city, I am trying to find out if there are any remains from the ancient island fortress of Tyre, and was wondering if you could steer me to references to these remains of a wall, that is, the reasons for the conclusion that this was was from the ancient fortress city of Tyre.”

But this quote mentioned wells on an island! Now how is this possible? Thus the lack of enthusiasm for endorsing this reference as a perceptive one. But again, making an embargo, that the island could withstand for multiplied years, does not seem to be some extraordinary pressure, nor what we should call a war, or a siege. Yet Tyre was besieged by Neb, and thus I conclude it was the mainland settlement.

I will not disagree with history! I may disagree with some historians, though, especially if other well-recognized researchers are of a different opinion on this question.

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

That would appear to be the corner that biblical literalists have painted themselves into, yes.

How ironic a thing for *you* to say. Pity you don't follow your own advice, though.

Maybe because not every chunk of Phoenician material that got tossed into the water was incorporated into the causeway. There are two groups of underwater debris: (1) stuff that was used to form the causeway; and (2) stuff that wasn't.

Yes, except there is no evidence of any such earthquake. The existence of a fault line is not evidence.

Moreover -- and as you have been told several times already -- Tyre was a major economic power in the ancient world. Imagine New York City or Switzerland. Had the island fortress sank, it would have been noticed by the other great powers of the ancient Mediterranean. You have yet to provide any such evidence, because it simply doesn't exist.

And there is a fault line that runs down the coast of Seattle. By that logic, the timbers at the bottom of Lake Union are proof that Seattle sunk.

Morever, you have failed to address the problems with your explanation listed previously;

1. Herod's port is irrelevant to this discussion; it is not evidence of anything about Tyre. Herod's port was in Caesaria, not in Tyre, and you have not provided any reason for Herod's port sinking, although we know that it sank only 100 years after it was built;

2. You have not demonstrated any "major fault line", nor have you connected the Tyrian ruins to the faultline;

3. you have not ruled out the other far more likely and historically plausible explanations for the material underwater;

4. you have not explained the contrary evidence - evidence that could not exist, if such an earthquake happened;

5. The existence of a fault line does not imply sinking; if it did, then it would be proof that Seattle and Los Angeles have both sunk;

In short, your "Tyre sunk" scenario makes about as much sense as blaming space aliens for your broken porch window, when there is a baseball laying on your front porch with broken glass all around it.

Huh? It is not a reason at all - strong, weak or otherwise. Why? For reasons you continue to ignore. Let's repeat for your benefit:

1. Tyre looks like a perfectly normal peninsula to me - of course, if you disagree, please provide a definition of "normal", along with a list of your sampling methodology and criteria for determining normality;

2. Silting has occurred on the peninsula - that has been stated about two dozen times now. And since the original causeway was artificial, there's nothing unusual about that. Any residual assertion that the peninsula does not "look normal" can be attributed to the silting action, as Casper already told you earlier:

Tyre is an excellent example of a batholithic peak. As the shoreline ebbs and flows, the entire silt cycle crawls down the coast. When it gets to a reflection, it piles up. Some places have to dredge to prevent their piers from becoming little peninsulas, creating little coves further down the beach.

The original builders probably encountered either a small island or a small peninsula, perfect for defense, and even more appropriate, a natural pier to get the fishing boats out there further. Adding layers of habitation, as well as constantly fighting the erosion process, only helped the little rock stay above the waterline over centuries. Why would it sink? You would have to dredge just to keep it from being overtaken by beach shift. The only thing really affecting its elevation is hydrostatic rebound of the tectonic plates between ice ages, and we aren't even close to going back that far to have more than a meter or two difference.

It never sank. If it did, there would be no way for it to re-emerge, especially after the medieval warm period.


1. Earthquakes strong enough to bury a regional economic power? Something like that would have been recorded, if for no other reason than to note the new economic opportunities that arose and the power vacuum that such an event created.

2. Your statement "how often are such earthquakes recorded - not very ofen" is just more of your self-serving speculation. You are trying to paint the idea of someone recording such an earthquake to seem like an unlikely occurrence. That allows you to claim that the earthquake as a possibility, but (you hope) absolves you of any duty to produce supporting evidence for it. You are too lazy to do any footwork to search for such a record -- and probably because you already know that your earthquake never happened in the first place. Unless, of course, you have some evidence that earthquakes were routinely ignored by ancient historians? If so, list your evidence here.

3. Your follow-up statement that ancient historians would have to be geologists to record such an earthquake is ridiculous. People can easily observe (and record) an earthquake, without knowing anything about geology.

4. And of course, all this ignores the fact that written records are only one way of detecting an earthquake. An earthquake leaves physical geologic evidence that can be detected today. So if your earthquake fairy tale were true, a modern day geologist should be able to support you. So get busy, and start asking geologists about your idea. :rolling:

I know fundamentalists are fond of binary choices, but you've left out several possibilities, as usual:

3) such walls *are* obscure, contrary to your claim;
4) such walls are dirty, brown, without any mosaics or frescoes, and as such are not that interesting;
5) such walls are still being excavated/studied, and are not open to the public for viewing;
6) such walls are not viewable right now, due to the political situation in Lebanon & Syra;
7) about a half dozen other explanations which your trite binary assumption fails to address.

Frankly, Lee, you really don't know if the tourist agencies are, or aren't, advertising these walls. You're not an expert on tourist agencies, nor is there any evidence that you've surveyed enough of them to summarize what they are offering their customers.

Already addressed. This was a reprint. At the time of the original printing, the wall may not have been found, or it may have been affected by one of the seven situations that appear above.

Another self-serving "conclusion" that you cooked up. If Jidejian ever knew of the wall, she may have simply concluded that it was so ordinary in nature (or badly damaged) as to not be worthy of mention.

Some quotes are different? Interesting claim. Let's see the list of quotes that are different. Post them here in two sections, or side-by-side. Make sure you list the page numbers (both the original volume, as well as the reprinted one).

Incorrect. It's not "safe" at all to assume that - too bad for you, I realize.

1. In the first place, we have no evidence that the volume was updated at all.

2. In the second place, we do not know what items might have been updated, or what criteria were used to decide what to update. For all we know, the only updates might have been mistakes or spelling errors.

If you want to claim that the two volumes are different and that the newer printing contains important updates, you are going to have to get off your lazy ass and demonstrate that with evidence, lee.

I don't believe he is arguing that Jidejian was mistaken. He is arguing that something was either (a) unknown or (b) too trivial to be mentioned. That is not a claim that Jidejian was in error.

1. Wells *do* run dry - there are such things as seasonal wells;
2. Wells can be poisoned;
3. The island was supporting extra people now, since the inhabitants of the mainland had evacuated to the island - the well may have simply been overtaxed;
4. You have presented no evidence that islands are unlikely to have wells - claiming it out of the clear blue simply will not suffice;

1. With what? There was no timber on the island. Where do they get the raw materials for?
2. Where? In the same harbor where they were being sieged by Babylon?

Do you even stop to think about your responses before you post them?

Blindly copying them, like a photocopy machine.

The point is that the tourist websites are not expert sources. They blindly copy and paste things they don't bother to verify and often don't even understand -- just like you do. So because of that, your love of quoting them isn't really the same thing as supporting your argument. You're quoting non-experts, who don't know the material. Try quoting experts -- but I warn you, that will require reading and work.

Oh, never mind. Who am I kidding?

1. I know of zero scholars who disagree with this view. If you think I've overlooked any, please list them here along with their published work on the topic, along with page number(s) and location.

2. If you want to know what scholars have to say about the Babylonian siege of Tyre, why haven't you read any? Why do you always ask your opponents to do all the research?

3. "Had not heard that it was a siege of the island?" Who are you kidding? You're lying again, lee. Every discussion we have had so far has focused on a siege of the island. Remember your attempt to claim that the fortress was strangely shaped? And how you got shot down badly on that? You yourself were arguing inside the context of a siege against the island. So don't pretend that you've never heard this statement before.

It is the accurate historical case -- you only reject it, because it destroys Ezekiel's prophecy. And Jidejian herself indicates this, as I told you before:

Note that this quotation also refutes your attempt to claim that you had never heard of the idea of a siege of the island before. And as we'll see below, it refutes your claim that Jidejian thought the siege was of the mainland suburbs, instead of the island city.

You want to see a claim established? My what high standards you ask of other people in arguments, but what low standards you hold yourself to. Does that double standard ever bother you, lee?

Both you and bfniii are wrong. In point of fact, based upon Nebuchadnezzar's goals and the position of Tyre in the ancient world, it was inevitable that he would attack it.

No, you changed the requirement after I satisfied it. Basic dishonesty. Let's go over it one more time, to keep you from wiggling off the hook:

* Seattle and Tyre both have ruins below the ground of the current cities.
* Seattle and Tyre both have ruins in nearby bodies of water.
* You claim that in the case of Tyre, this is evidence of an earthquake.
* Therefore to be consistent, you must also believe that timbers in Lake Washington (or Lake Union) near Seattle are *also* be proof of an earthquake. (The same is true of Boston, London, New York, etc.)

The situations are identical. Therefore your positions on all these cities must be the same. Either that, or you're being inconsistent again, in order to salvage your argument.

More ad hoc assumptions? Did you think it would really work?

In point of fact:

1. The Britannica said nothing about soundings. That was a quote from one of your tourist sites - another good reason never to trust lee_merrill's memory about anything;

2. Contrary to your attempt to sneak your own conclusions into the debate, soundings do not imply that the ruins were not found - nice try, but you were already corrected on that assumption in our earlier thread;

3. Finally - who says there are no reports on these ruins? You? But as we've seen, your level of exposure to this topic isn't a good barometer of the current state of information about it. In plainer language, just because lee_merrill doesn't know about ruins at Tyre does not prove that no information exists on that topic;

How conveniently bad your memory is, lee_merrill.

I started out this discussion thinking you were interested in the topic. Then after debating it with you for months, I watched you act with extreme intellectual and personal dishonesty. In the course of that debate, you made claims about:

* ancient military tactics;
* ancient siegecraft;
* iron age mediterranean maritime skills and practices;
* civil engineering of the ancient near east;
* genetic engineering and forensic DNA examination;
* geology;
* archaeology;
* Islam and semitic languages;

Whenever your argument got in trouble, you'd create an ad hoc claim involving one of these topics in a "what if" attempt to avoid admitting the mistake. Would you ever actually research the claim, or support it with evidence? Of course not. But you expected your opponents to run around and dig up evidence to shoot down your "what if" scenario. You tried to foist this double-standard upon anyone who wasn't careful enough to recognize it and reject it.

And then, when the debate got to be too tough, you bowed out and told everyone that you weren't going to answer questions or objections about your ideas on Tyre anymore. You quit the debate, but left a mountain of unanswered questions. And now, what do we see? You merely waited a few months, and then resurfaced and tried to peddle the same arguments that were refuted earlier.

You're intellectually dishonest, lee. At a fundamental level, you do not respect your opponent enough to put the same amount of time and effort into the debate that you expect out of your opponent. That is lazy and hypocritical, and for that you do not deserve any better treatment that I am giving you.

Already answered this. As soon as you support all your previous affirmative claims, then -- and ONLY then -- will you be in a position to ask others to do the same. And considering that I've been asking for such proof for almost a year now, you're considerably late.

You have first affirmative claim. Get busy.

That is not good for your argument, unfortunately.

That is correct. Until and unless you can connect the two events, or show some relationship. A good way to start would be to show that Tyre sank in the first place, which you have yet to do.

The fact that my nextdoor neighbor's house burned down does not prove that my house ever burned down, especially since there is no evidence to show any such fire at my house.


No, I did not forget. But the objections I raised before are still valid. You have not shown:

* that the fault line is major;
* nor have you shown any activity at the time period in question;
* nor have you even shown that Tyre sank in the first place;
* Seattle also has a fault line, as does Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, etc. By your intellectually lazy standards, that proves that Seattle and all these other cities must have sunk, too;

You aren't even doing that. If you were truthfully interested in what was most probable, you would have given up this fairy tale idea about Tyre sinking long ago, since it has zero evidence to support it.

How do you explain the resurgence of Tyre and its influence in the area, if the main chunk of the city was destroyed by earthquake?

How do you explain the lack of mention in any Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Arab, or local sources of this alleged catastrophe?

How do you explain the island's existence today? Did it sink, then rise again, like some kind of whack-a-mole at the county fair?

Your claim is that the fortress of Tyre sunk.
Berrigan clearly locates it on the island of Tyre we know today.
Therefore, Berrigan disagrees with you.


What difference does it make?
Perhaps it was dredged, interfering with the natural silting process.
Perhaps it *has* rounded out the corners - but the process isn't finished yet.
The silting is occurring on the south side of the peninsula, where the Egyptian port is at. You can't expect it to impact the west or the north end. Do you honestly claim to doubt that silting has happened?

This is another reason why you get treated harshly in debates, lee. You toss out silly and irrelevant questions that are nothing more than transparent dodges to help you avoid obvious conclusions about the weak points of your argument.

No, they don't. Florida has a very distinct elongated torpedo (or banana) shape. None of the places I listed share that characteristic. I selected my examples carefully, for that very reason. In fact, Iceland and Kenai look far more like Tyre than they do Florida.

Really? Says who? You? How much have you studied about geology, lee? I see no reason to assume that large areas are less impacted by silting than smaller ones would be. And you certainly have presented no such reasons.

Feel free to do so, because assuming it ad hoc won't be accepted.

Ad hoc assumption. Let's see your proof that the rate of silting varies by size. Make sure you adjust for different climes, impact of ocean current and local geology, and don't forget to factor in man-made influences.

Folks, this is why lee_merrill's claims are nonsense. Given an inch, he will give you a mile's worth of ad hoc, expert-level statements on subjects that he frankly has no idea of what he is talking about.

You're ducking my question again: who says that they haven't done so? You? Why should we trust your level of information? How many tourist sites do you know about, or have you enquired about? As I said earlier: as we've seen, your level of exposure to this topic isn't a good barometer of the current state of information about it. In plainer language, just because lee_merrill doesn't know about ruins at Tyre does not prove that no information exists on that topic.

And in point of fact, absence from tourist websites proves nothing. Perhaps:

3) such walls *are* obscure, contrary to your claim;
4) such walls are dirty, brown, without any mosaics or frescoes, and as such are not that interesting;
5) such walls are still being excavated/studied, and are not open to the public for viewing;
6) such walls are not viewable right now, due to the political situation in Lebanon & Syra;
7) about a half dozen other explanations which your trite binary assumption fails to address.

Defended? Yes, your claim must be defended. If it's that easy to defend, then fine - consider it a training exercise: Supporting Your Claims 101.

I would not expect them to mention it. What is the point of mentioning something that is off limits to the target audience?

Yes, but you are not a historian, archaeologist, or govt official in Lebanon, are you? And as we've seen, what you personally consider reasonable is irrelevant, since you're uninformed about this topic. Let me put it this way: many govts discourage investigation into areas that might result in civil unrest or sectarian violence.

And of course, there is my other point here: you were already told about this particular social phenomenon in Lebanon in our earlier thread, but you pretended not to be aware of it in your new thread. More dishonesty.

It's far more volatile than that -- which you would know, if you had gotten off your lazy ass to read the sources that were spoon-fed to you in our last debate.

Because:
1. it has already been brought to light, long before the Lebanese civil war, so it's not possible to put the genie back in the bottle;

2. the social situation in Lebanon is changing - which you would be aware of, if you actually knew anything about this subject;

My claims are always defended, providing that my opponent's previous claims are supported first. He who claims first, has first burden of proof.

Farrell's claims have been defended. Yours have not. Therefore, it is hypocritical of you to ask dongiovanni1976x to support claims about the Sidonian port BEFORE you have supported your numerous what-if scenarios.

Morever, the first claim has ALWAYS been yours - in the original thread we debated Tyre. You tried to walk away from that thread (and your obligation to support your claims). But now that you have re-opened the subject, you still have outstanding debts from your previous debate.

Yes, but the walled city was on the island. Your source does not say that the walled city was on the mainland, as you erroneously claim. Moreover, the quote I provided from Jidejian above (in green) makes it clear that she also believes that the walled city - the one being sieged - was on the island.

You lose.

noah

Lee stated:
First of all Lee, how do you know?

Second of all Lee why must we do all the footwork every time we debate this issue with you?

Why do you think it is enough to simply throw out some question at us and expect us to serve you an answer as though we were somehow your servants here in this debate? You are an equal in this debate Lee. That means you are expected to support any and every assertion you make. You have to do your part Lee and provide us with proof of your claims.
You do nothing for your point Lee when you throw out these guess/questions at us as though they were legitimate arguments. They aren't. Legitimate arguments are backed with facts and stats and studies, not guesses and unsubstantiated "what ifs".

You have yet to provide us and the readers any proof of any of your claims.

You have not shown that:

- Tyre sank beneath the waves. I don't mean some tiny portion Lee. I mean the island - all of it.

- Tyre was ever made a bare rock.

Fault lines do not prove earthquakes. I live on a fault line. I have not sunk to the bottom of the sea.
Islands in the area that sank do not prove that Tyre sank too.

I'll give you a hint or two Lee. If you want to prove Tyre sank then you will find some geological, geomorphic and geological evidence for it. That means you will have to consult geological, geomorphic and geological sources and provide us with the fruits of your research here.
You will also find some historical works that prove Tyre sank.
By "prove" Lee I mean what the word means. I mean you will have to show evidence and not guesswork and "what ifs". You will have to show concrete data and facts that do more than force us to refute your endless unsupported speculations.
In short Lee, you will have to participate in this debate as an equal partner who assumes his share of the burden. It's only fair to ask you that you put forward some kind of real support for your claims. Why should it always be us who do the only honest debating in this and other threads with you?

Third for your info Lee lots of islands have wells.
The island of Vieques has wells. So does Sri Lanka. Salt Spring Island next to where I live, has wells. The island I live on, Vancouver Island, has wells So does Kent Island . Long Island has wells. Guam has wells and so do about a thousand other island Lee.

I really do suggest that you first verify on your own any claim or guess you plan to post here Lee. If you had only bothered to check this "islands having wells" thing before you made the claim that they didn't, you would have saved yourself the loss of credibility you suffered here by my simple posting of some 10 minutes of research into islands that have wells.