Malachi151

One thing that I didn't see mentioned is that people can quite often predict the future.

Even if a prediction comes true, that doesn't mean that the prediction was based on "divine revelation". This woudl assume that no one can ever predict anything naturally, which, of course, is absurd.

People of all kinds, including religious fanatics, can often sense the social and political winds and correctly predict major social events, such as future wars, etc.

People live in soceity, and they know of unrest or changing social conditions. They can easily make predictions based on this that can indeed be accurate.

No god is needed here.

dongiovanni1976x

As to point #1- In 1947 Dr. Cherab began excavating between the undiscovered 5th century breached Phoenician wall, and the submerged Egyptian harbor. This site was called “the City Excavation” because it was located on the ancient island city. (Bikai, P. in chp 3 of Martha Joukowsky’s “Heritage of Tyre” p.31) It was here that the cippolino columns were found as part of the Roman promenade and just north of this was the rectangular arena. I have demonstrated before that we have Phoenician remains (5th century pottery shards and handles discovered by Denyse Le Lasseur (source: “Mission archeologique a Tyr” Syria III, 1922, pp9-10) and the 5th century breached wall Peter Woodward was standing in discovered by Dr. Frost in 1966) and that these remains are under the Roman and Greek levels (the Roman Promenade is adjacent to the arena which is just to the north and the wall and pottery were found in this same area called the “city excavation”) just as they should be. (source: Bikai, P. in chp 3 of Martha Joukowsky’s “Heritage of Tyre” p. 29-31)
Point #2: The southern portion of the ancient island (i.e. the Egyptian harbor) is under water. This previous fact and the fact that a good deal of debris and ruins from Ushu were tossed into the sea to form the causeway, is an adequate explanation for seeing such material under water.
Point #3: There is no recorded evidence for such an even that I can find. Are you suggesting that an Earthquake in 749 CE caused the island portion of Tyre to break off from the artificial peninsular causeway? What evidence do you have that this fault line runs through Tyre? What evidence do you have that it was ever affected by this or any other earthquake? Or are you just positing this theory as a mere possibility?
Point#4: Could this be because it was an island connected artificially to the coast? This point is weak to say the least I don’t even understand what merit it has. What is a peninsula supposed to look like? Last I checked and body of land surrounded by water on three sides can be called such…
So, to sum up…we have Phoenician ruins under Greco-Romans ruins, the ruins that are underwater are on the southern portion of the ancient island where the Egyptian harbor and the island of Hercules were located, I can find no evidence of any earthquake that has been recorded in Tyrian history which may have led to the island breaking off from the causeway and becoming submerged.
How many corners can one man attack? This is such a minor quibble it is distracting from the more important points I have been stressing. Peter Woodward was speaking in a Romantic style appealing to the imagination of the audience, suggesting that it is at this VERY spot that archaeologist believe Alexander himself first crossed into the city. I REPEAT never did he say that this was the ONLY area that was breached. But he does stress that the demoralized Tyrians were so frightened that the wall finally gave in that they retreated north into the city. Therefore, technically, it was all the Macedonians needed to get INTO the city even though they were making headway at other defensive positions around the city- including the port areas where the ships broke in…

Why am I supposed to give an account for the minds an motives of tourist agencies? I gave you a great example earlier of one that claimed that King Hiram created Alexander’s causeway…perhaps they are too busy studying the Koran like some do the Bible to actually read history and archaeology. I have no idea. All I know is what I saw and what I have read. And I saw the wall and I read about its findings etc…if you refuse to believe me, Sachara, the tourist whom you believe was misled because she attests to this wall, Host Peter Woodward, Dr. Frost, Dr. Cherab, Dr.’s Pierre and Patricia Bikai, Dr. Katzenstien, Dr. Joukowsky, Dr. Badre, native Tyrians Dr. Chalabi and Dr. Badawi, then I would really be more worried about your motives and rationale than that of some Lebanese website’s.
Ask Nina...I can only attest to the many sources I have cited, and that I SAW Peter Woodward standing in the wall itself, that I read Dr. Bikai’s account of Dr. Frost discovering it and an independent tourist, Sachara, who visited it and further confirms it. Why it is not mentioned in this one book, though I agree it should be there, I can only speculate. Regardless it does not discredit the fact that the wall is there.
Maybe she didn’t do any updates then. From what I read, after she finished this book she wrote some children’s book. (Contributor Biographies, in Dr Joukowsky’s “Heritage of Tyre”, 1992 p178) Since Nina got her degree in Paris maybe she doesn’t spend as much time in Tyre as the other sources I cited. IDK.
Since you seem to hold Nina Jidejian in high regard I will quote her:
Interstingly Jidejian was referring to what the tourist Sachara mentioned about the bazaar area near that Sidonian port. She says that:
Another interesting point is that Jidejian is referring to the same green cippolino (Italian for onion) columns that made up the Roman Promenade…the same Promenade that is seen in the background when Peter Woodward is standing in the ancient breached wall of Tyre! Funny how this all comes together isn’t it!
A major reason why the Tyrians could have desired to come to some sort of agreement with Nebuchadnezzar may be similar to an event that the Tyrian historian Meander recorded about two hundred years earlier. He describes, as recounted by Josephus who claims to have read the account, that Tyre was prevented forced to dig wells as they endured a five year siege or blockade of mainland Ushu where the primary water supply was located.
We are told that during the reign of Tyrian king Eloulaios (aka, Eluleus/Luli, c. 729-694 BCE), the King of Assyria, Selampsas (Shalmaneser V, c. 726-722 BCE), invade Phoenicia. (Josephus, Ant. IX, 284) That Sidon, Arke and Ushu allied with Shalmaneser V against Tyre, but King Luli held out.(ibid, 285) Shalmaneser V “placed guards at the river (Litani) and the aqueducts to prevent the Tyrians from drawing water, and this they endured for five years, and drank from wells which they had dug.” (ibid, 287)
Mind you, this was only for five years! If Nebuchadnezzar had the resources to maintain this on Tyre for thirteen long years it is very likely that the thirsty and disease prone Tyrian people were clamoring for some kind of truce. A truce that most certainly left the city independent economically but one in which saved face for the great Babylonian king who had expended such vast resources to display his power and greatness.

As Gullwind pointed out to you:
It does make a difference. Add to this the fact that Tyre had trouble surviving this way for just FIVE years under King Luli, so imagine them trying to last THIRTEEN years…Perhaps the Tyrians were just used to luxury and wanted an end to the whole business and figured they could get a decent deal – i.e. remain independent and go about their commercial activities and knew that Nebuchadnezzar was desperate to save face.
I still don’t understand why I must psycho-analyze kings and ancient Tyrians in order to demonstrate that the island part of the city did NOT break off and sink into the sea- since we have the Sidonian harbor AND the ancient wall of the city to view to this day. Such quibbles about WHY they would or wouldn’t surrender do nothing to your theory that the wall and the harbor should both be submerged at this very moment.
[quote] Don: #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.
Lee: 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. [quote]
Point 3, in light of points one and two make simply add more support. You would expect to see such a “fortified” place withstand some kind of siege…but on the contrary we have numerous attacks that simply walked right over Ushu. So if points one and two are uncontested then there is no reason why the conclusion must be assume for point three to have relevance.
And point 4 you seem to suggest that it is just a matter of “sooner than later”. But this is not the impression Dr. Katzenstien, Dr. Cherab and Dr. Bikai make. They say WHEN Ushu was attacked the inhabitants fled to Tyre for safety…NOT THIRTEEN YEARS later!!! If the average person lived to be 30 or so that would be half their life waiting around to FLEE for safety! Ridiculous!
The “others” you mention are all verbatim copies of the same source which is not by an actual scholar but a tourist website. Likely the kind that attempt to attract many rich English speaking Christians…I will acknowledge that the strongest case that we have on this planet at present that Ushu was “strongly fortified” enough to withstand a thirteen year siege is Nina Jidejian. But given that the over whelming majority of scholars concur with Dr. Katzenstien’s account I would say it is a weak case and that it is more probable that Ushians fled to Tyre well before the end of this thirteen year siege.
I base this on Dr. Katzenstien’s account of the events, And the fact that we have no archaeological evidence for a walled city in the area of Ushu, And we have no literary evidence or inscriptions similar to those which show Tyre as a fortified island city (ANEP 327, 321),And, never in all of recorded history did Ushu ever withstand a siege of any kind, And Every historian and archaeologist I have cited say that Ushu’s residents would flee to Tyre during times of war. And waiting around thirteen years to do so seems very implausible.
To counter these points you say that the inhabitants of Ushu withstood a thirteen year siege because Nina Jidejian says “much of this refers to the siege of the mainland city” when referring to the events described by Ezekiel in chapter 26 verses 7-14. Very flimsy evidence.
Again, I have pointed out that earlier sieges of Tyre were done by blockading the fresh springs and posting guards at the Litani river. This, contrary to what you may want to believe, had a profound impact on the Tyrians.

It said he got NOTHING. It did not say that he failed to get LOTS of plunder.
He got NOTHING. Yet Ezekiel said that he would…but you are just going to say that the prophecy said that the “many nations” would get the plunder…and I don’t even want to waste my time with such nonsense.
So because X never mentions Y, Z was misled?
Did you go with Sachara to Tyre? Do you know if these overzealous tourists guides, who so desperately wanted to show her the 5th century breached Phoenician wall, are the same ones that forgot to put this on their website?
You are desperate to discount this wall- because it separates you from your inerrant position…to bad the breach on it is not wide enough to fit Gleason Archer’s bullshit theory through it.
I would agree with you. It seems logical that this would be the case.

If you are referring to this map: Then I think it only demonstrates that the Island of Hercules and the Egyptian harbor are submerged but shows how most of the old island, including the Sidonian harbor, the ancient Phoenician wall and the Roman Promenade and arena above it, are all still visible and connected to the causeway to this day- unlike what Gleason Archer contends.

The Sidonian harbor was part of the ancient island, as mentioned in the classical texts and cited by your favorite source Nina Jidejian, among many others, and it has a bazaar near it that Sachara the tourist visited. This, the wall and the 5th century pottery shards, by themselves are the clearest evidence that the ancient island is not broken off and completely underwater, and therefore your sinking island theory has failed.

Gullwind

It seems to me that it is immaterial whether the island sank or not. The prophecy says that it would be lost and never be found again. Whether its above or below sea level, we know where it is, and have always known.

Prophecy fails.

bfniii

ah, good ole johnny. what johnny is failing to mention is that i have already rebutted this article

here

bfniii

i've read that passage and i sure don't see where it says anything to the effect of "failure". however, i do see "effort" which is, of course, completely different than failure.

bfniii

source?

bfniii

and that would be?



i have addressed this in the biblical errors thread

in verse 2, God refers to tyre as a common, not a place, just as in the reference to jerusalem. "tyre has said". places don't "say" anything. groups of people do. in verse 6, "they shall know that". if He were referring to the place, He would say "it". verse 7 claims "against tyre". the language implies that an attack would come against a people, not a place. an enemy isn't against a city. in verse 15, which picks up the word against the nation, God says "sound of your fall". the word used means "overthrow". a place isn't overthrown, a seat of power is. the lamentation in verse 17 uses the word "perished". the original word means perish, die, be exterminated, kill, put to death. those words don't refer to a place. in verse 20 God says He will "bring you down with those". the word "those" refers to a nation or people, not a place.

the prophecy wasn't totally about the physical damage to the city

bfniii

same old jack; unfounded victorious claims.

1. what guarantee do we have that Quintus Curtius Rufus (i assume that is who you are referring to here) was accurate in this detail?
2. even if they did return, they did not do so under the auspices of recreating the nation of tyre. tyre was gone.

bfniii

"destroy the walls of Tyre," does not imply that the city/kingdom had walls around the perimeter of the area. it just means there were walls.



see post #10

bfniii

verses?



perhaps you have a misperception of the issue?



i wouldn't call it proof, but it is part of the prophecy.



not entirely. there are ways for waves to hit mainland places.



this is physical imagery, a device common to prophets. a look at the etymology will help understand what ezekiel means. the overarching message from all of this imagery in chapter 26 is really directed at the collective people of tyre (whatever word you want to use; kingdom, city-state, nation, country). the physical imagery is used to underscore what the overall message is, but it does refer to some specifics. notice the phrase "like the top of a rock". this is translated from the original intent of the phrase and obviously is a reference to the kind of destruction tyre is facing. it's not very different if someone were to say "squash you like a bug". that phrase has a non-literal meaning to us today, but it is doubtful that it will have the same meaning several thousand years from now. it seems that ezekiel is saying that tyre's buildings will be brought down. tyre won't look like an organized collection of buildings, but more like the top of a rock; something that is not organized in a man-made way.
the word "rock" means "to be lofty", "a stronghold of security", "cliff". obviously, ezekiel is telling tyre that tyre's status might have been secure, but that won't last. he's using the physical action of conquering armies, nebuchadnezzar and alexander, who brought down the buildings in tyre, to symbolically refer to what will happen to tyre as a whole.

the word "top", "xyxc", means "glowing" or "shining". interestingly enough, rocks tend to have a smooth, shining surface if polished. taken together, these words form a phrase that indicates that tyre's influential position would be reduced like buildings being felled by attacking armies.

"scrape" is not something that conjures up visions of attacking armies. it's usually something that can be painful. it's an interesting choice of words.



look at the word "nets". it can mean "cursed thing" or "destroyed". ezekiel also used the same word to mean "dedicated thing" in 44:29. i think the broad meaning of the term, ezekiel appears cognizant that the word had a broad meaning by using it in different contexts, illuminates more of the same from ezekiel. he is repeating the dire consequences of tyre's fate. this does not mean the meaning should be artifically restricted to a physical sense.

these are similar literary devices that ezekiel employed in previous and subsequent chapters regarding other nations.



not entirely. nebuchadnezzar fulfilled his part.



unless it was referring to tyre corporately, as i have shown.