lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I agree! "Many nations" need not stop at Neb.

I agree! And most probably, the transition to being underwater.

It's possible! We need to know now if it is probable.

Maybe I should have moved my disclaimer to be right after my statement. I did say this was my estimate, not Nina's comment.

So then buy the book!

Then the picture is on page 12. Do we agree now that the picture without the sand is quite different than the outline with the sand?

Saying Alex threw them into the harbor is a probable estimate? Especially if you can see them from the sandy parts, and most of the coast is loose sand, far from where they think the coast was.

One difficulty would be that the more bends you have in the wall, the more difficult it is to see attackers, and watch all the various places around that wall, and more bends in a wall (it's not all straight lines) is more difficult than a straight wall, and is generally less sturdy.

Well, I just read a geologist describing their methods, and the resolution is about 25 meters. Certainly not enough to detect a wall or a pillar underground! What reference do we have that shows they can detect a Phoenician pillar with a sound wave?

Well, it's no use if it doesn't show there were buildings there, as far as this discussion is concerned.

What building materials are in Boston harbor, may I ask?

Ruins that were in water do not imply sinking? Ruins, I mean, not just rubble. "Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few" (Nina's book, p. 13).

But "built no more" could refer to all current building at the site of Tyre, it being completely stopped, and the destination being desolation.

They built more after Neb's attack though, didn't they?

Well, it's plain that the final destination is desolation, complete ruin, and stopping further building there is a parallel with that. I'm not saying that a lapse in building projects would fulfill this prophecy, I'm saying more, that the prophecy is fulfilled if all building projects at Tyre are wiped out and the city becomes a ruin.

And she quotes him like she agrees! "One can call Tyre a city of ruins built out of ruins" (Nina, again quoting Renan). Presumably Renan didn't need to do archaeology to discover the present state of the city!

Calling Tyre a city of ruins means it was not totally demolished?

What would geologic evidence of sinking be, though? Of (say) 50 feet or so?

Then what happened to Herod's prize port? Someone says it sank, in a publication, thus we need to hear of the evidence that refutes that claim.

This is interesting, now are you saying that the relative change in levels is possibly deceiving? That it's really the northern parts rising, not the southern parts sinking?

And I'm surprised that a glacier is as heavy as all that! Well, neat...

Regards,
Lee

Casper

Actually a little of both occurs. For an idea of the weight of the glacial mass, consider that the actual land mass of Greenland is almost entirely below sea level even today. If you removed the ice on top, you would see a very large bowl-shaped land mass.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. Re: the ruins in the sea, could you show me a picture and give me the orientation of said picture, along with a general location of these ruins? I have my theories on that as well, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

I also want to put forth something my brother sugested, which is that a pause in tectonic rebound coupled with a very rapid rise in sea level could inundate Tyre, and subsequent drops in sea level would allow it to "re-emerge" in a sense. The problem with that is it would only be as damaging as a major flood to a coastal port, not exactly destructive in the apocolyptic sense (Venice has been sinking into the mud fairly quickly for centuries). It also would have been a regional, rather than local phenomenon, as the Mediterranian would need to rise several meters over a few decades and then subside as quickly; we don't have any evidence of that happening anywhere since before Phoenician times, that I am aware of.

lee_merrill

Hi Casper,

Pretty awesome! I shall have more respect for the ice cubes in my tea, now.

I wish I did have such pictures! I can only quote my Nina book, and contemplate doing a tour of Tyre some day.

Maybe events such as the Little Ice Age would take up enough ice to move the sea level up and down this much? I don't know, but this is interesting...

But my position here is that any parts of Tyre that sank have not re-emerged, so your point here would cause me discomfort, if it were proved!

Regards,
Lee

meforevidence

Here is a great link for studying the book of Judith as well as other ancient studies such as Assyria and so forth. It is the California Institute for Ancient Studies.

http://specialtyinterests.net/

I may not agree with everything he states but then again, no two people usually agree on everything. See for yourself.

Sven

Well, at least it spouts bullshit about science - so I would be really careful about their claims about history.

Sauron

Except that Ezekiel's text specifically connects Nebuchadnezzar's armies to "many nations."

Nice try. But that isn't what I said. I said *dropping* columns preceded the silting action - dropping them, not erecting them.

We've been over this before - you aren't paying attention as usual.

It *is* probable, since he ravaged the city and had to build a causeway under the pressure of military deadlines and fending off attacks from Tyrians.

What you you need to demonstrate that your wild hypothesis of sinking is (a) even possible and then show that it is (b) more probable than any of the historically accurate events that I listed.

Another lie? Your original statement did not have a disclaimer. Here is your original statement:

Well, I find both pros and cons for about every view here, for example, it does seem that the Sidonian and Egyptian ports are considered to be found, but they had to try and find them! The Egyptian port is no more, actually, and the columns underwater are well beyond where they think the coast was, so they didn't get there by Alex throwing them into the sea.

You only introduced the disclaimer when I challenged your statement.

No need to - I've owned it for years. If you think that Jidejian has any comment about "where they think the coast was" then list the chapter and page.

1. "Sand" is not the same as "coastline".

2. What's more, your claim wasn't about the general coastline of the island. Here is your claim again:

the columns underwater are well beyond where they think the coast was,

You claim is about (a) the specific part of the coast nearest to the Egyptian port; and (b) where you think the columns are resting at the moment, RELATIVE to that. Showing that sand has silted up the causeway over the centuries doesn't say anything about where "they think the coastline was" RELATIVE to the columns. Try again.

Oh, and by the way - your idea of Tyre sinking is busted for another reason. If we assume your assertion correct, there must have been a time *before* Tyre sunk. In that situation, looking at the city from above, you would have this absurd scenario:

ISLAND OF TYRE
|||||||||||||||
|
|
Egyptian port
|
|
|
columns

In the "pre-sinking" era of Tyre, the columns are on the wrong side of the port. They should be north of the port, not south of it. Unless you want to explain why the Tyrians would have created a port *on dry land* between the island and the columns. :rolling:

Since we know that:

(1) Alex used left over rubble and materials from the mainland to build the causeway IN THE WATER; and
(2) did it all under pressure of a military deadline; and while
(3) trying to fend off attacks from Tyrians, and then
(4) Alex ravaged the city as punishment for their resistance

it's a far more probable scenario to implicate Alexander in depositing these columns, than to entertain your wild-ass claim of Tyre sinking being the cause.

In fact, *ANY* of the explanations I gave is more probable than Tyre sinking - which is the core of your problem. You have zero evidence for Tyre sinking.

And since Britannica clearly indicates that "the Phoenician city lies, for the most part, under the modern city," this rat-hole about a few columns in the water is just a diversion. The MAJORITY of the city obviously isn't even in the area of the Egyptian port in the first place.

1. Simply wrong.

2. Many forts have bends in them - that is dictated by the lay of the land, and military powers simply have to work around the geographic cards they have been dealt;

You publicly embarrassed yourself earlier with your assumptions about ancient military history; didn't you learn your lesson? Are you now going to lecture us on ancient civil engineering? :rolling:

Nonsense. They're perfectly sturdy, and you've presented zero evidence to show otherwise.

I don't know why you keep throwing out your wild-ass guesses and assertions, lee. No one is accepting them.

I encourage everyone reading this thread to go to this page that lee merrill linked to above. When you get there, you'll find exactly ZERO about archaeological soundings on it.

Lee merrill has instead linked to a Glenn Morton article describing seismic explorations using dynamite charges. Now while Glenn is an excellent writer and accomplished anti-creationism debater, the techniques and tools for seismic exploration are NOT the same as those used for taking archaeological soundings. What Glenn is describing is NOT archaeological soundings.

Holy shit - Glenn is discussing setting off dynamite charges - can you realistically believe that any archaeologist would dynamite a sensitive exploration area? Just to get preliminary data?

Keep embarrassing yourself, Lee.

I gave you links to how these processes are used. Go read them. Better yet, pick up a college freshman text on archaeology. Take some responsibility for your own education.

Of no use? Nonsense. Just another unfounded assertion on your part.

Bricks. Girders. Steel. Concrete blocks. 400 years worth of crap from the start of Boston in colonial days to the modern-day era.

You can also see these in Providence, off of the Fox Point picnic area. We had a picnic there several months ago; I was disgusted with how polluted the water was with all the crap.

Now stop dodging and answer the question: by your ridiculous viewpoint, that means that both Boston and Providence must have sunk at some time. Right?

Nope. Not at all. It depends on *how* they got there.

Rubble *is* a kind of "ruins". Already been through this before. Another example:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Arti...ticle_id=10434
Ruins are categorized on a four-point scale. Class 1 contains sites that are widely known, Henderson says: "We readily disclose them to the public; they have a long history of tourist use." Class 4 sites are so fragile they’re officially closed to visitation. "We withhold information about them from the public, and even from park staff. If people find them on their own, that’s fine," Henderson says. Only Class 1 and Class 2 sites are depicted in park brochures and trail guides, he says.

Envisioning an outdoor museum

At Canyons of the Ancients, Jacobson hopes to follow the strategy of drawing visitors to a few major sites and leaving the rest, most of which are unimpressive rubble mounds, to the adventurous to find.

The BLM has not yet written a long-term management plan. First, Norton must give the go-ahead for an advisory committee that will assist with the effort, and then its members must be chosen. But Jacobson envisions the monument as an "outdoor museum" without the concessions and paved paths of Mesa Verde, but a place where people can "go explore, hopefully have respect for what they find, and have a sense of discovery, without just being led to places.

"There’s a hope that increased visibility may ultimately get us the resources we need to do a better job," she adds. "I view Canyons of the Ancients as a place where, if you have the resources, it doesn’t have to be locked up to protect it."

Moreover, Jidejian is counting the fact that the Egyptian port is part of the "ruins" of Tyre. Much of the Egyptian port is either underwater, or mired in muck or sand.

No, it could not, for the reason I stated: in Ezekiel's time, Tyre was already "built" - it was a fully operational economic and military powerhouse. "Built no more" makes zero sense, when discussing a city that is already fully built.

You are also ignoring the prophecy. It specifically says that a DESTRUCTION will precede the state of "built no more". You can't get to "built no more", without passing through destruction first.

However, no such destruction ever occurred. So the prophecy fails for two reasons. Moreover, modern Tyre has been rebuilt.

Yes, because Nebuchadnezzar destroyed part of the city with his siege. Tyre rebuilt after every attack.

You are incorrect. The prophecy is only fulfilled if (a) specifically Nebuchadnezzar destroys the city, and (b) the city never rebuilts after that specific destruction.

No, she doesn't. She merely quotes him to provide the historical context of the modern excavations.

No, it means that it was continually rebuilding on the ruins of previous attacks.

You mean you don't know what geologic evidence is necessary? How come you don't know, lee?

It's a geologic claim you are making here, you know. And it's YOUR claim -- don't you think you ought to know what geologic evidence is needed first? Before making such a claim?

Laughably pathetic.

No, lee. We know Herod's port sank. That is not in question.

But you're the only one around here that's claiming a connection to the fault line. We need to hear your evidence to support that connection.

Sauron

1. If that is all that is "causing you discomfort", then you need to review the list of your unproven claims that are still waiting for substantiation.

2. You apparently believe that your possibilities can stand, unless someone disproves them. You have it backwards. You need to come up with supporting evidence for your ideas first -- instead of expecting other people to waste their time hunting evidence to shoot those ideas down.

Sauron

It's a Christian "Chariots of the Gods" nonsense page; complete with creationism, Egyptian 18th dynasty jury-rigged chronology, etc.

Utter waste of space.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, let's say Neb was indeed many nations, then must we conclude that more nations than Neb's many nations cannot be meant? "Many" must stop at Neb?

Wouldn't those stones have been useful for his causeway, though? That would make it improbable that he threw them away. And if they are visible from the sand line, which is much of the coast, then he had to throw them halfway out in the harbor, which is again, improbable.

Well, I did actually say this was my estimate, and it remains my estimate, until I find out more.

Well, certainly my view does imply that the present view of where the coast extended to, is wrong, which is not impossible, and therefore not necessarily absurd.

Well, let's see...

Now why it is more probable that Alex would throw stones into the sea, apart from the causeway, during this time?

Yes, he should stop minding the arrows, and throw rocks into the sea? He was in a hurry, so he should take a detour to do this? It is less probable, not more probable here.

All the inhabitants were killed or sold, or escaped prior to the sack of the city, though, so why would he make a special point of putting stones underwater, if no people were to be left there? And Nina called them ruins, not rubble, making it more probable, again, that these were not put there by Alex, because they are not just scattered stones.

Well, my current position can live with this scenario, even.

A wall without bends, you can see the whole wall from any point on it, though.

Even fortresses on hills typically are boxes though, not polygons.

That is why I-beams are curved, instead of straight?

And a straight wall also requires less materials, another benefit.

No, I can't! I do think the whole idea of using sound waves to detect Phoenician ruins underground is impossible, and the resolution of the geologists implies the available resolution with sound waves for anyone, which is why I mentioned this.

I have tried to look at all the pertinent references as posts were made here, could you post these links again please, if you don't mind?

How is pottery of use in this discussion, if they do not indicate buildings there?

You can tell a colonial brick underwater? A colonial steel girder?

And colonial ruins underwater would imply sinking, but not colonial bricks.

[QUOTE]Lee: Ruins, I mean, not just rubble. "Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few" (Nina's book, p. 13).

Sauron, quoting: Ruins are categorized on a four-point scale. Class 1 contains sites that are widely known...

At Canyons of the Ancients, Jacobson hopes to follow the strategy of drawing visitors to a few major sites and leaving the rest, most of which are unimpressive rubble mounds, to the adventurous to find. ... But Jacobson envisions the monument as an "outdoor museum" ...UOTE]
Where is the implication that rubble is ruins, though, in these statements?

But "port" must mean construction, must it not? She wouldn't call a place ships once sailed over, ruins.

But the Tyrians were said (by you!) to have made further fortifications after the attack by Neb, and that's being built more.

I agree, that I think fits with my view here.

Nina would, it seems, disagree, how do you evaluate her quote of Renan saying Tyre was a city of ruins built out of ruins? "Renan attributed the final devastation of Tyre to the onslaught of the Arabs at the end of the thirteenth century. From the ruins of the destroyed city [etc.]" Thus it was a city of ruins, finally devastated, if Nina agrees here, which indeed she seems to be doing.

Rebuilding means not ruins, though, saying a city is in ruins means ... it's in ruins.

What in her comments leads you to conclude that this is her meaning, may I ask?

Only if "many nations" stops with Neb! It need not stop there, though.

No, I'm saying that there would probably be no geological evidence of a location sinking 50 feet, and you were saying there would be, so I am asking what that evidence would be.

I posted a map, actually, showing the fault line running near both areas, isn't that considered evidence?

And a map, again, is not evidence? Herod's port sinking, is also not evidence? The (possible) island of Hercules next door to Tyre, now sunken, is ... not evidence?

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Yes, because Ezekiel equates the two.

Apparently he didn't need them, since the causeway was built without them.

Pay attention. I didn't say he might have thrown them away.

1. Incorrect. The current sand line is the *result* of silting up from the causeway. The current sand line didn't exist in Alexander's time.

2. You've shown no evidence that the "sand line is much of the coast."

<edit> You did not say "where I think the coast might have been." You said is what "where THEY estimate the coast was." And you said that in context of your "book report" on Jidejian's book.

You didn't qualify your statement at all, until you got caught red-handed trying to make it sound like the book supported your view, when in reality it did not. Once that was brought to light, you hurried to backtrack and pretend it was only "your estimate". Typical.

1. Your view is absurd, for the reason I stated: it puts the port in between the main city and the columns.

2. The present view of where the extent of the ancient Tyrian coast extended to is a correct analysis. Your opposing view is incorrect, and a farce built upon wishful thinking.

Already asked and answered above.

Already asked and answered above.

1. Wrong. A military commander under fire is going to be rushed and sloppy putting the causeway together. And he isn't going to worry if some of the materials get tossed or discarded during the construction process.

2. My scenario is vastly more probable than yours.

1. As a lesson to other cities who might try to oppose him.
2. To prevent (or slow down) any attempts to rebuild the city so that it posed a threat in the future.

If you had spent 15 seconds thinking about that comment, you might have realized the obvious answers to it and not embarrassed yourself.

Already addressed and refuted.

Since your "current position" is impervious to contrary evidence, I suppose your "current position" could live with pretty much any inconvenient data.

Still incorrect. The answer is obvious, but you're not bothering to think about it. Or -- which is more likely -- you're just playing la-dee-da games again.

1. Are they? Really? You've shown no proof for that statement. Do you have any?

2. Doesn't refute what I said: many forts have bends, because the engineers work with the lay of the land. You've yet to show that such forts are less effective or less sturdy.

1. BZZT. Irrelevant. I-beams have nothing to do with forts.

2. Your claim is sturdiness. Show that polygon forts are less sturdy.

1. Says who? You? But you've presented no such evidence that fewer materials are required.

2. Even if you were correct about the amount of materials needed, it wouldn't change or refute my argument. engineers are forced to work within the lay of the land. Period. Considering how rich Tyre was, the cost of materials would not have been an issue.

You're engaged in a lot of handwaving, Lee. But nothing really substantial yet.

Then why did you link to Glenn Morton's geology description in a debate about archaeology?

Yah, but what you think doesn't really matter, does it? As we've all seen, you don't know a thimbleful about archaeology, so your views abou what is "impossible" don't really count for very much. I mean, if you knew shit about the topic, you would have known better than to link to Glenn Morton's geology description in a debate about archaeology -- right? :rolling:

1. It implies nothing of the kind. You're making this stuff up as you go.

2. Sound waves are not the only kind of technology used to make archaeological soundings. You would have known that, had you bothered to read the links I gave you. But that's simply too much to ask, isn't it?

1. No, you have not tried to look at the references. That is why we are having to go over the same ground multiple times.

2. No, I will not re-post them. You are lazy. You are also dishonest. If you want to read the sources, then go back and read the thread; I posted them several times already.

Go look it up. I'm not going to fill in the blanks -- the MANY blanks -- in your knowledge, by spoonfeeding you the answers every time. Your habit of tossing out a claim and then relying upon your opponents to educate you became tired and stale long ago.

The material is there, and we know that Indians didn't build in brick or steel. Whether it is colonial or 1930s era material is irrelevant.

It is rubble in the water. Therefore, by your intellectually crippled standard, that proves Boston must have sunk.

Already answered and refuted: ruins and rubble are the same thing.

The statement that the ruins are composed of rubble. I even put it in red, so that not even someone of your overwhelming dishonesty could miss it.

But I'm sure you'll give it a try.

No. How bizarre a question.

Ov course she would. Especially if there were piers that sank in the water from disuse, or sunken trading ships in the waters and the muck below.

The dishonesty of some people amazes me. Yes, I said that - but you're deliberately avoiding the timeline. When the prophecy of Ezekiel was uttered, the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar had not happened yet. At that time, Tyre was a complete city, and did not need to rebuilt.

And the fact that the city WAS rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar invalidates the prophecy anyhow.

But then the destruction WAS followed by construction -- thus invalidating the prophecy. Checkmate.

Like every other question you have, that one has already been asked and answered.

Jidejian says that this is what Renan thought. But then she is only commenting upon Renan's opinion, which is 150 years out of date. Moreover, she also points out:

Renan published in 1864 the resuls of his excavations at Tyre, Sidon, Jebeil (Byblos) and Aradus. Although the scientific method of modern day archaeology was not applied in his day, Mission de Phenicie has preseved interesting information for the historian and archaeologist.


Says who? You? Bullshit. A city rebuilds on top of its ruins - happens all the time, in many cities around the world. Beirut is currently rebuilding on top of the ruins of the 1982 war and the decades of fighting and Syrian occupation. Dresden rebuilt on ruins. Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt on ruins.

You don't even stop to think how easily refuted your homemade definitions are, do you ?

That is the proper way to set the stage for discussing modern excavations, or research. First you discuss the people who have come before you, evaluate their contributions, and give accolades or criticisms as necessary.

Yes, it does. Since Ezekiel equated the two.

Really? Where did you get your geology degree from, Lee? For someone who doesn't know beans about ancient military tactics, ancient civil engineering, ancient maritime navigation, or the history of ancient near eastern empires, you sure don't hesitate to toss out your guesses do you?

How many times are you going to keep guessing as the lazy man's way to fill in for missing facts?

And I'm saying that since you put forth the claim about Tyre sinking, it's up to you to prove that no geological method to detect that event currently exists. You *require* that as part of your argument. Your viewpoint can't stand up without that piece of evidence.

Already asked and answered this one as well. Not without proof of an earthquake, no -- this is not evidence.

1. Seattle also has a fault line. By your intellectually lazy standards, that proves that Seattle sunk, too.

Oh,wait -- Anchorage has a fault line. So I guess Anchorage must have sunk. Oh, shit! San Francisco has a fault line - I guess San Francisco must have sunk, too. Tokyo, Rome, Manila, Mexico City all have fault lines. I guess that proves they must have all sunk! It's all so clear; let's just all use the patented Lee Merrill Logic (R). :rolling:

2. You proved nothing about how Herod's port sank. The presence of a fault line is not proof of sinking by earthquake. So bringing up Herod's port only complicates your work, because if you want to use it as proof for Tyre sinking, you need to show some kind of connection between the two -- and so far you've utterly failed to even attempt that.

No, again, since the map doesn't support your claim of Tyre sinking.

No, since last time I checked, Herod's port is not located on the island of Tyre.

And "no", since you haven't demonstrated any connection between a fault line and the sinking of Herod's port in the first place.

And "no", since you haven't proven that Tyre ever sank.

No, since that is not the island of Tyre.

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.