Sven

Could you please cite this ominous rule?

And looks like more dishonesty: Sauron already corrected you twice that you apply this "rule" (if it even exists) wrongly.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill:

I wrote:

Can you reasonably prove that the Tyre prophecy was made well before Nebby attacked the mainland settlement?

You replied:

No, I can't, it had to have been pretty soon (archaeologically speaking), since Neb was mentioned as if people would know about him.

Johnny: Ok, the prophecy might have been made a few weeks before the invasion, and Ezekiel might have known about it in advance, or he might have written the prophecy just after the invasion started. Can you reasonably prove otherwise? If not, is it not time for you to vacate this thread and attempt to make better use of your time? Unless you can adequately resolve the issue of the dating of the proophecy, none of the other aspects of the prophecy make any difference. Why don't you open a thread on another prophecy?

Sven

Is this irony or are you masochistic?

Johnny Skeptic

I asked Lee Merrill "Why don't you open a thread on another prophecy?" Sven replied "Is this irony or are you masochistic?" Sven, I made the request to Lee because I enjoy seeing fundies embarrass themselves, and Lee is doing a good job of embarrassing himself.

Sven

OK, it's a kind of irony.

Sauron

You make it sound as if cranking out assertions is manual labor or something....

*sigh* Why don't you just take me up on the offer of a sledgehammer?

1. If the prophecy was made "pretty soon", then that undercuts the claim that it was a prophecy at all. If Ezekiel wrote Ch 26 near to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre, then it becomes less like a prophecy and more like a political observer stating, in real time, what they think will happen next. Predicting an event that is (a) obvious, (b) likely, and (c) clearly imminent isn't prophecy at all.

2. Archaeologicaly speaking - OK, I'll bite. Lee merrill, which specific bits of archaeological evidence lead you to this conclusion?

3. People did know about Nebuchadnezzar, but that doesn't prove that Ezekiel was written before the actual event. Nebuchadnezzar was known by the Jewish people for five hundred years after the Captivity (and beyond). The oral memory of the Babylonian ruler who caused the Captivity of Babylon would have stayed alive for centuries. So given that, Ezekiel could have been written in 100 AD, and the prophecy wouldn't be a prophecy.

<deleted>

No one thinks that Nebuchadnezzar attacking Tyre is improbable. Quite the reverse: we think it was pretty much inevitable. That's why Ezekiel's text hardly constitutes prophecy.

What we think was improbable is that Ezekiel prophesied this well before the fact, in a time frame when the events were unlikely or unheard of.

But Tyre did NOT fall, nor was it made "like the top of a rock." The island city held out. So the prophecy predicting the fall of Tyre was proven wrong.

Alexander has nothing to do with this. Ezekiel named Nebuchadnezzar as the conqueror of Tyre, not Alexander. You don't get to substitute names, just because Ezekiel got it wrong.

Not that it helps much; Alexander also didn't fulfill the prophecy.

1. That is not the rule.

2. I provided you with the rule, and also with the definition of collective nouns, and an explanation of how they act contextually as plural nouns. Apparently you're unwilling to read either definition, because you sense the checkmate coming in one move.

3. Therefore given all the above, no adjustment of the rule is necessary. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen :thumbs:

Unless the "further response" is just a repetition of a previously refuted response. Which happens almost continually with you.

In cases such as that, it's perfectly acceptable for me to repeat my rebuttal over and over again, until such time as you get it through your <deleted> head.

I gave the links. The fact that you are too lazy or too scared to go back and read them is not a defense, nor is it a rebuttal. The fact that you don't *remember* the links is likewise not a rebuttal; your memory and understanding of this issue -- as well as your personal conduct as a debate participant -- all leave very much to be desired.

Besides, this is bad strategy on your part.

1. You claim the links I gave don't exist.
2. And now that someone else has stated that they read those same links - the ones you pretend aren't there.
3. So what do you do?

4. You *still* try to claim that I never gave the links, and that they don't exist. Even though Cajela point-blank says that he READ them.

NOW do you begin to understand why everyone thinks you're fundamentally a <deleted> game-player, with no real interest in the topic?

It's a fortress, lee. Without straight walls anywhere.

Care to explain? :rolling: :rolling:

Sauron

I doubt we need lee merrill, though. I think that Sven and I can do a fair imitation of lee:

1. Sven - you make an uninformed statement. Then I'll refute it.

2. Then try to drag in some science or history or the study of the ancient near east, and pretend that it's relevant. Someone else refute that point.

3. Then Sven, make yet another claim. I'll ask for a source, but you ignore the request and try to switch the burden of proof back to me, or to someone else. When I remind you that it doesn't work that way, pretend like you can't read my post.

4. When that's all done, Sven, try to sidetrack the discussion with a quibble about spelling, or about an alleged difference between "rubble" and "ruins". I'll rebut that six or eight times. You ignore the rebuttals, and pretend that you can't see the links to professional information I give.

It'll be just like debating lee merrill. So I don't really see any need for lee to open a new thread; we can probably create the same result without involving him at all.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

cajela

She, actually.

Admittedly, the archaeological techniques one was pretty brief, compared to a lot of the other sites given. But still, it was a university department site, and mentioned several different techniques by their correct names, so you could always google or wikipedia for more info.

I think it might have been on about page 3? Find it in 5 minutes - search for posts by Sauron in this thread and check the links. Glad you liked the fort piccie.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

If Alex was part of the fulfillment, though, this cannot be post-dated. And I have been discussing other prophecies in other threads! Glad to discuss more, though, this is a productive area to investigate, in my opinion...

Well, this web page says about this fortress, "The city Naarden has to its fame mainly the unique blockhouse ... If you now see the blockhouse, then you see a unique star-shaped complex."

So it is said to be unique! And perhaps for a reason, not every fortress design may be said to have turned out well.

Yes, here it is:

"To summarize: in order to find out what the pronoun "they" refers to here in v.12, we do not go winding and snaking our way backward through the text, trying to find the last occurrence of the word "they" in a verbal form. The most straightforward reading of this verse is to attach the 3rd person plural 'they' verb to the most recently named plural noun where it makes sense; i.e., where the named plural noun is capable of performing the action the verb describes. In this respect, Hebrew is just like English."

No mention of collective nouns, and no exceptions that include my counter-example with the Marines. What about my counter-example?

Prophecies have to be made more that 87 hours prior to the event?

I meant compared to the range of times that concern archaeologists, decades, more than years, centuries, more than decades.

I agree, I mentioned this as indicating the reasons for my view on the time frame, since that was the question.

But that was not the question, my answer was not addressed to the probability only of Neb attacking Tyre.

Unless many nations could include more than Neb.

Here we are claiming a universal negative proved by lack of evidence in archaeology, for a city that was said to be ruins, by an archaeologist.

Thank you very much! That was helpful, here it is, and here is what they say:

Now what is geoarcheology? It is described here, and they say "The study of the physical landscape and the processes operating within it is an essential pre-requisite for the understanding of the formation and distribution of archaeological sites."

So this is not for finding buildings underground, nor for detecting Phoenician stones and columns, this is landscape analysis, and does not provide the information Sauron is claiming, nor can MRIs do so, or dolphins, or bats, the mention of which, in this paragraph, caused me to skip it, on the first reading...

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Unnecessary to mention collective nouns by name. Anyone who knows grammar knows that collective nouns can function contextually as plurals. Read it again: "to the most recently named plural noun where it makes sense." That includes nouns that are collective, as per the definition which I provided. Of course, you've never read the definition, so how could you possibly know that? :rolling:

Oh, and remind me, lee merrill: when was the last time you provided a link that supported one of your claims? Oh, that's right! NEVER.

<deleted> I already addressed your counter-example. I also took you on a little tour of grammar, to show you a second reason why your example was retarded and fatally flawed. Your Marines example doesn't include any collective nouns. It is instead just bad grammar, that you're trying to pass off as a valid counterexample.

Remember my last post, when I said:
Unless the "further response" is just a repetition of a previously refuted response. Which happens almost continually with you.

In cases such as that, it's perfectly acceptable for me to repeat my rebuttal over and over again, until such time as you get it through your <deleted> head.

This is another example of that principle in action.

But none of which really succeeds in distracting us from the main point here <deleted>. The main point has not been successfully challenged: all these nouns that Ezekiel listed are plurals, and taken as a group, they comprise a super-group of plurals as well. <deleted>

I didn't suggest a number. Why did you do so? Did you pull that number out of your ass?

Prophecies have to be made sufficiently in advance of the event that the society in which they are made would say the event is unlikely and unrealistic for them to occur. Otherwise, they're just political opinions, similar to the Sunday morning news talk shows that discuss upcoming legislation, international crises, or world summits. Predicting the obvious is not prophecy.

And again, we are not distracted from the main point: you suggested a criterion for this prophecy that actually works against the claim that it's a prophecy in the first place: you tried to suggest that the prophecy was close in time to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. But the closer the prophecy comes to the actual event, the less it qualifies as a prophecy. ESPECIALLY when the attack on Tyre was patently obvious to anyone in the region, given the history of Nebuchadnezzar's previous military campaigns in the area.

But you haven't studied any of that, so once again -- how could you *possibly* know that?

That's a very strange backpedal. Archaeologists are not concerned with time in that fashion; that is the purview of historians. Archaeologists are concerned with artifacts far more.

This new explanation of yours sounds more like you realized you had tossed in a phrase that you didn't understand ("archaeologically speaking"), and are now frantically trying to find a way to dig yourself out of a corner before you get trapped and killed like a cornered roach.

shakes head, rolls eyes

Listen slowly: if you agree with what I said, then you are admitting that your view on the time frame are bogus. Your view is based upon a faulty assumption, that I just gutted like a trout. That was the point of what I just said, above. Agreeing with me destroys your argument and your viewpoint. So are you *sure* that you agree with what I said here, or are you just so overwhelmed by the argument that you don't know what you think anymore?

Yes, that WAS the question. Johnny wanted to know what part of it indicated divine inspiration. You responded to his question with a lie. People here do NOT think it was improbable that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre. Instead, people here think it was INEVITABLE.

Do you understand the different between improbable and inevitable?

Which it cannot, because Ezekiel equated "many nations" with the armies of Nebuchadnezzar.

No, we are claiming that there is no evidence for this prophecy being fulfilled. There is ZERO evidence that Tyre was made "like the top of a rock" by Nebuchadnezzar. And in point of fact, there is ZERO evidence that Tyre was EVER made "like the top of a rock" by ANYONE IN HISTORY.

Who (Renan) was:
1. making his comments over 150 years ago; AND
2. discussing the state of the city in 1291 - which he was not a witness to; AND
3. not practicing scientific, forensic archaeology, as witnessed by Jidejian; AND
4. most probably speaking poetically and metaphorically - which was often the case with pre-modern "biblical archaeology";

Ah. So you found someone who took pity on you <deleted> and this person gave you the link.

So......what does this mean? Hmm. Basically you <were wrong> when you said that I never presented the links. <deleted> I think I am owed an apology, lee merrill.

Wrong. It assists in that very function.

Borehole investigation (e.g. using a wire line percussion rig or a Terrier) enables sub-surface stratigraphy to be observed, allows direct comparison with any extant geotechnical data and may allow direct recovery of archaeological artefacts. Other techniques include the use of Cone Penetration Testing (CPT).

Although this methodology is restrictive in the view it provides of the site including such information in a geomorphological/sedimentological model for the site can provide valuable data on the nature of the sub-surface stratigraphy and its' archaeological potential. This information may be used by the geoarchaeologist to map the spatial extent and model the 3-dimensional sub-surface stratigraphic architectures of archaeologically and palaeoenvironmentally important sequences.

So basically, they use this technique to conduct soundings in an area, to see if it's archaeologically worthwhile to spend any time or money digging there. Which is what I said earlier -- given that the modern city of Tyre lies atop the Phoenician ruins, it would take advanced forensic techniques to look at the buried levels of the city without disturbing the buildings and roads of the modern city.

You're getting ready to step on a land mine again: making definitive statements about a field of study that you didn't even know existed fifteen minutes ago, lee merrill. :rolling:

Also wrong. The point of this link was to show you that soundings meant something else than excavation -- which was your ignorant and uninformed claim.

Another technique involves the use of an ABEM LUND system to record one-dimensional soundings using a Wenner array to produce a two-dimensional geoelectric pseudo-depth profile. When calibrated against surface and down-hole geophysical measurements this can provide a detailed picture of the subsurface stratigraphy. The illustration provided here has been generated when surveying across the line of an infilled valley in West Sussex.

I've put the most important word in this paragraph in large bold font. Can you find it?

Moreover, this is not merely "landscape analysis".

http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/de...Geoarchaeology

Geoarchaeology -- the use of geologic methods and principles to enhance interpretations of the archaeologic record -- is a major specialty area that has experienced tremendous growth over the past few decades. Designed for students with shared interests in geology and archaeology, the concentration in geoarchaeology is truly multidisciplinary, requiring students to combine coursework from the geology and anthropology departments, as well as from the supporting sciences.

<deleted>

1. <deleted> This isn't the first time that someone has responded to your claim and you pretend not to see the response. You skipped it like you skipped every other response - because you're not sincerely interested in the discussion. <deleted>

2. This paragraph was not intended to support my statements about dolphins, bats, or MRIs. Let's review the discussion, since you're clearly intent on twisting it out of context.

You said:

I assumed by "soundings" they meant digging, not echolocation.

To which I responded:

Why on earth would you assume that? If they meant digging, they would have said "excavation". Soundings are not only done with echolocation; they also use blast analysis, metal detection, etc.

There are many imaging techniques besides photography - I already mentioned several that you chose to ignore: MRI, CATSCAN, etc. Even bats and dolphins have imaging techniques based on sound. Here; educate yourself - especially the section on pictures.

So I took a three step approach with you:

1. I told you about the paleontologist technique of using sound waves to image an entire rock bed, and look for fossils.

2. I then offered you a link that showed ONE of SEVERAL different imaging techniques for doing soundings.

3. I then brought up things that your limited mind probably encountered -- dolphins, bats, MRIs - as examples of other imaging techniques.

The goal, you ask? I hoped (without reason) that your <deleted> mind could stretch a little bit, and realize that given the current state of technology and the way that science finds to apply imagine processes, that archaeological soundings means more than digging.

But you missed the point. And not because you don't understand it, but because -- as we all know -- you are merely playing games here.