Boro Nut

No. You are asuming we can't read. When even Ezekiel admits it was a dud it should be pretty clear to anyone that it was a dud, notwithstanding all of the historical evidence proving it was a dud. Even if Ezekiel hadn't admitted it was a dud, it wouldn't alter the bald fact that it was a dud.

Boro Nut

Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
Nope, you're still not making any sense.

Whatever gave you the notion that Tyre has "no underground ruins that you can find by digging"? The Phoenician ruins are underneath the present town. If you were prepared to demolish modern Tyre, you'd presumably find plenty of them: just as you'd presumably find the ruins of old "New Amsterdam" if you demolished modern New York.

So, if our hypothetical archaeologist goes to Manhattan, and can't see the ruins of New Amsterdam because they're underneath the modern city: he would drown if his name is "Merrill"?

Remember what you're claiming here: that YOU, Lee Merrill, have NO IDEA if the island of Manhattan is above water or underwater. You are, apparently, one of only a handful of people in the world who don't KNOW that Manhattan is actually above water: only a handful who can still be persuaded otherwise, by the flimsiest of "evidence".

dongiovanni1976x

Ok. That makes more sense. SO your position is that sometime after 332 BC and before 2006 AD Insular Tyre, the original island connected together by Hiram and which defied Alexander, dropped below sea-level and we do not know where it is. So how did you come to this conclusion? What is this position based upon? What makes this a plausible position to maintain?

Alexander personally attacked one corner- he specifically ordered a pincher attack to surround and demoralize the Tyrians…the breached wall found by Dr. Frost in which the host of the documentary, Mr. Woodward, was standing was only a portion of the breached defenses. Alexander was atop a tower alongside the wall…once Admetus was killed, Alexander hopped down into the fray and charged through the breach at this point. It is not certain that the breached 5th Century Phoenician wall that was located by Dr. Frost in 1966 is in fact the same point of entry that Alexander used, but it makes for an interesting documentary. Curtius tells us there were many such places where the walls caved in (QC 4.4.12); Arrian further confirms that this small breach may in fact be where Alexander charged through…
This fits squarely into what Peter Woodward was recounting when he was standing in the very same 5th century breached wall on location at Tyre Lebanon in 2004…
Obviously if we have evidence of even a portion of the wall of ancient Tyre we have additional proof that the island is not lost forever and “broken off and sunk” as you and Mr. Archer assert. But I find this even less convincing than the evidence for the northern “Sidonian” port that is still in use to this day…there is archaeological and literary evidence from Alexander’s day and obvious our day for this port and this is proof positive that the island is not lost somewhere under the sea but very much inhabited to this day.

Any king away from his kingdom for such a length of time would start to get paranoid that murmurs of discontentment at home or on his borders need his personal attention. He obviously was making an impact and it wasn’t a stalemate- it was like Nixon’s idea- “Peace with Honor” The Tyre was not sacked and its people were free but some punishment was meated out to the aristocracy. I think Nebuchadnezzar probably just saw the futility in the whole process.
This need not happen overnight or anything – all that was necessary was that the two sides came to an agreement- Tyre was obviously weakened trying to fend off such a mighty empire that consisted of many nations and Nebuchadnezzar could get back to actually making sure these many nations did not back out on him and get back to govenoring his empire.

I pointed out that #1- we have no archaeological evidence for a walled city, #2 we have no literary evidence or inscriptions similar to those that show Tyre as a fortified island city (ANEP 327, 321) #3 Never in all of recorded history did Ushu ever withstand a siege of any kind #4 All of the historians and archaeologists I have cited say that Ushu’s residents would flee to Tyre during times of war.
These are four powerful facts in support of the idea that Ushu was not a walled city (perhaps it had a makeshift wooden palisade or the like to keep animals fenced in or predators or small bandits out but nothing like a solid stone wall with fortified towers that Ezekiel mentions). Given that you are forcing me to prove a negative I think that these facts sufficiently demonstrate that it is more probable that Ushu did NOT have stone walls and fortified towers like Ezekiel mentioned.
Dr. Jidejian never says that Ushu had stone walls, she never explicitly says that the siege last 13 years against Ushu but she does subscribe to the idea that Ezekiel was prophesying against the mainland and the island- she never specifically says which…
Dr. Jidejian later says that…
Oddly, Dr. Jidejian does say that, referring to Ezekiel 26:7-14, that
Since verses 7-14 mention walls and fortified towers we can only speculate how Dr. Jidejian came to her conclusion and whether or not these “walls and fortified towers” were the part that she says was referring to the mainland city.
What makes you think it is “more probable” that Ushu withstood a 13 year siege given the weight of evidence for each side?




So you are saying WHEN Nebuchadnezzar ATTACKED Ushu the inhabitants waited 13 years to flee to the fortified island, the religious and administrative center of Tyre, the citadel renown for being impregnable…you think that they stayed 13 years in a city that never once survived a siege in its recorded history? Why? This makes no sense…
And in that preface what updates did she say she did?
I pointed out earlier that Alexander passed through the “first” breach in the wall…Peter Woodward never said that this was the ONLY breach made in the wall- for brevity I only cited the part about the actual find of 5th Century Phoenician remains because you asked why there were none. I have demonstrated that we have this wall and pottery handles both dating to this period to show provide additional proof that the island is not broken off under water somewhere.
Do you know what the opposite of an “unlikely prophecy” is? It is like me predicting that George W. Bush would invade Iraq in late fall of 2003. Do you realize how many people did this? I wont harp on this because I am not trying to discredit the Bible I just thought that this was supposed to be a significant prophecy. Since you think otherwise I will drop this particular issue.
I don’t believe I have made my conclusion my argument because I feel as though I have successfully presented enough evidence to convince anyone that the area called Tyre in Alexander’s day still stands to this day. Since you still disagree, what is your evidence that the island broke off in light of the fact that the Sidonian harbor is still in use, the wall Alexander passed through sits above the sea next to modern buildings, pottery fragments from 5th century Tyre were found near modern buildings in section #7, no one that I know of on earth but you and Mr. Archer assert such a theory, the only reason you do seems to be from a presuppositionalist’s view and is therefore entirely theologically based, aerial photography matches the outline of the city with a clear view of the same Sidonian harbor etc…I could go on and on here…so what is YOUR evidence to support YOUR theory?

dongiovanni1976x

Are you a third person, after Gleason Archer and Lee Merrill, who thinks that Tyre broke of and sunk into the sea?

The information that "exists" and has been presented has been done so all from one side. All that Lee has argued is whether it is "plausible" and therefore in his mind "defensible" these kinds of semantics do not count as "evidence" in favor for him, they only demonstrate the fundmentals of epistemology. It is simple to take a stance where you sit back and say, "prove it to me" and let others do reasearch and formulate putatively airtight arguments...what is certainly not being addressed is that if someone wants to claim that Ezekiel made a successful prediction, no matter how insignificant, then that person making the claim must carry the burden of proof. All I have seen in this forum is ducking and dodging and appeals to the limits of epistemology.
This thread almost belongs in the philosophy forum because we don't seem to be discussing what is "highly probable" but just what "might be possible" - hell just about ANYTHING is possible...except for Ezekiel being right that is...

dongiovanni1976x

In 1945 Dr. Maurice Cherab became the director of the Lebanese Antiquities department. In 1947 Dr. Cherab found the Roman promenade with its green marbled columns. North of this was found an ancient arena, south of the promenade they found a Roman gymnasium. By 1960 this area, known as the “City Excavation” because it was located on the site of the ancient insular city of Tyre which you think fell off into the ocean, was expanded and a Roman road, just north of the Egyptian harbor, was found with richly decorated houses. Now, in addition to Dr. Patricia Bikai and Dr. Maurice Cherab, I found an online tourist who was at this very site. She says, “

So if the Roman promenade, the arena, and the lavish houses along the roman road are all found in what Dr. Bikai and Dr. Cherab call the, “City Excavation” (Bikai, P. in Joukowsky, M. Heritage of Tyre, Chp 3 1992 p31) and this person visited this very site and places it squarely in same area, where the 5th century Phoenician wall IS...why do you think this fell off into the sea and is lost?

Another interesting note, I watched the documentary again and you can see the Roman promenade in the background when Mr. Woodward is standing by the Phoenician wall we have been discussing. IN addition to this I have pictures here in Dr. Joukowsky’s book “Heritage of Tyre” (1992), Dr. Bikai’s description which coincides with the photographs, the documentary, the tourist Sachara mentioned earlier AND least we forget the Sidonian Harbor!!

Plus, where else would you find a 5th century Phoenician wall with evidence of bombardament on it? It is too late for Nebuchadnezzar and too early to be constructed on teh Penisula since it pre dates Alexander...how do you account for this evidence? Are you still just going to wonder why some tourist site didnt mention it? I read several tourists sites tonight- one even said that it was Hiram who created Alexander's causeway! Do you really think they worry about FACTS?

So what is your evidence that insular Tyre, the religious and administrative center of the city of Tyre, broke off and fell into the sea and is lost to this day…?

dongiovanni1976x

This sentence is not only misleading but incorrect on two points: #1 Hiram did connect some islands together but did not create a causeway to the shore, Alexander did this. And, #2 it seems to imply that Tyre successfully resisted Alexander.

My point is to demonstrate how unscholarly these tourist websites can be and citing them for source info without backing them up with something from either a professional historian or archaeologists adds little to no strength to ones argument.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

And let's grant your points! Let's even say the prophecy was written after the event (and no one noticed), and the version we have today is quite different from the original version, and that it was not divinely inspired.

Now that all these questions are addressed, let's discuss Farrell Till's question, as to whether what we have before us really happened.

Alas, we hear of no such ruins, pottery, yes! But no Phoenician ruins that I have heard of, apart from the one claim Don mentioned in the documentary, no claims especially from the tourist sites, though folks have been digging, and even found Roman and Greek layers underground.

I base the conclusion that the island-part sank mainly on:

1) Lack of discovery of Phoenician ruins under the Roman/Greek layers in the current location of Tyre, underground.
2) Phoenician ruins at the sea bottom, offshore.
3) Herod's port sank, at which time some conclude Tyre-the-island sank also (and a major fault line runs right down the coast), and there is even a map of a sunken island of Hercules, right offshore of Tyre!
4) Tyre doesn't look like a normal peninsula, e.g. its shape does not resemble Florida.

Well, what I meant is that these discoveries are not especially obscure, so then why wouldn't the tourist agencies know of them?

But he does seem to speak (from what you have quoted) as if the one small breach was the entry to the city, and it most apparently, was not. Surely he would have read Arrian, who describes entry from ships at sea, and so forth, as well as Alex's breaking through, so why speak like this?

But again, if a Phoenician wall has been discovered, why do we not hear about it from the tourist pages? Why does Jidejian not show a picture of this in her book, copyright 1996, or even mention this, as far as I can tell?

She doesn't specifically outline the changes made, actually, but I have noticed some quotes are different, and on different pages.

What evidence would that be, may I ask? I will require some details here...

I was asking not why Neb might have given in, but why Tyre did, though.

All right, so they just got tired (Tyred?) of the whole business, and agreed to a settlement? Perhaps, but I see no special reason for them to give up, if everything that went in and out of the city had to go by ship anyway, thus the only difference was that the trip was longer, but no extra trips were required.

And it would be nice to have some record of what happened, to inform us here.

But point number 3 assumes your conclusion, and point number 4 fits fine with both views, they held out until the city had to be abandoned, in your view sooner, in my view, later.

And Jidejian and others think the siege was of the mainland city, so I think your conclusion may not be conclusive! "Palaetyrus was forced to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. Its walls do not seem to have been restored..." ("Tyre Through the Ages," p. 19).

She does say "it must have been strongly fortified," though (p. 19).

Jidejian's conclusion, for one, she seems a well-versed authority. It would also seem improbable that Neb would think he was besieging a city, by occupying the beach offshore! Nor would it seem that the island city would be much put to it, by probably having to sail farther, but not more frequently, for provisions and trading.

Yet how is the prophecy wrong, if Neb only did not get lots of plunder? That is what Eze. 29:18-19 says, and presumably, when the residents saw they could not hold out, they sent their treasures over to the island.

Because you hate to hand over your houses and lands and rule of an area to an attacker? It's certainly helpful having the nearest coast nearby accessible to you, just like Russia gobbled up some countries for a port to the sea, or at least tried to, kind of the opposite direction, but the same motivation.

Why defend America if you can flee to Alaska or Hawaii?

Yes, I even mentioned this earlier, and posted a comment, there are other mentions of these jetties by archaeologists (instead of by tourists), and yet they do not mention these walls. So I think perhaps this tourist was mistaken, or might have misunderstood (or been misled?) by an overzealous tourist guide.

I would think they would be tempted to elaborate, so then a lack of such claims would tend to indicate no good evidence at all, would it not?

Well, if that map of the island of Hercules is correct, then that shows a piece of Tyre that sank. Why do you all not believe the map? I was being chided for not believing the pictures, maybe this shoe is really on the other foot.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

If the prophecy is a fraud, what difference does it make what happened?

Gullwind

I just thought I'd point out a hole in your logic here.

Let's say Tyre had a given number of ships for supply runs, and they were used to making short trips (say one day, including loading and unloading) to get those supplies.

Now along comes the siege, and suddenly those ships have to go elsewhere. Now it takes three days to bring in the same number of supplies. With the same number of ships and the same number of trips, you are now bringing in one-third the supplies you were before.

That makes a big difference when you're trying to supply a city.

lee_merrill

But my purpose here was to keep the discussion focused on Farrell Till's specific question. For these other questions, you may revive your thread asking about when the prophecy was made and so on!

Ooh, so right you are. More ships are needed to keep the supply rates the same. Yet I would think they would have gotten over that hump by the first year or so, but it may have been that some pirates and storms sank half their ships...

Regards,
Lee