meforevidence

Sauron: 1. The name "Tyre" is not Greek in the first place; it is the Greek attempt at trying to spell the Hebrew word for a Phoenician city. So it has been through the linguistic washing machine twice, before getting to English.
2. In point of fact, Tyre and Sur are the same word. This is the result of the initial letter in Hebrew being a tsade, which is prounounced as "ts". Arabic has the same letter; Russian has the same sound (as in the word "tsar"). It's difficult to teach the difference to someone who doesn't speak Arabic, Hebrew or Russian.
Response: I agree that “Tyre� is how the Greeks pronounced the word for this Phoenician city. However, what do you mean that it has gone through the linguistic machine twice? It is still understood to be “Tyre� in the LXX. Sor which is another word that was attempted in the Greek for the city on the shore. This changed later and not earlier. So perhaps we both agree that the linguistic machine should not have been used in the first place. The two words would still be used as two words representing two cities instead of them being merged together. As far as Tyre and Sur being the same word, that is obviously not true in the Greek texts. For if you look them up for yourself, they are quite different.
Go to the following site (but any LXX will show you the same thing) and look up Ezekiel 26 and 27. You will see that not only are they two different words in the same language, but that in one case, they are both used in the same sentence comparing Sor with Tyre. In the LXX interlinear, Ezekiel 27:32 it reads: “{Shall take their sons over you a lamentation} and a wailing, Sor, who is as Tyre, observing silence in the middle of the sea.� So we see in the Greek Text that Sor is compared with Tyre and there would be a lamentation for her because she will be cast into the sea. See: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-...df/ezekiel.pdf
However the Russians or Arabians pronounce it today is beside the point. We are discussing the language of the time and the oldest original texts. They (The LXX and the Book of Judith) both separate Tyre and Sor. This should have continued in whatever language one chooses to translate the words into.
Another question that arises is: When you speak of the Hebrew word for Tyre “tsade�, what is the earliest Hebrew you are speaking of? The early Hebrew is quite different than modern Hebrew. If you are speaking of Hebrew based on the Masoretic Texts, they were written almost a thousand years later than the Greek text. If you have found an earlier text (besides the Samaritan Pentateuch which does not include Ezekiel) then please show me.

Sauron: 3. This has caused you to mistake a variant spelling for a different city. But even in the KJV, we have Tyre as well as Tyrus:

JER 25:22 And all the kings of Tyrus, and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea,

JOS 19:29 And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib:

Variant spellings do not indicate a second location.

Response: I agree with this, however, the context needs to be attended. The KJV version differs from the original Greek though.
The word used in Joshua 19:29 is different in the Greek and means “Tyrians� which describes the people and not the place itself. The people of Tyre would not be called “Tyre.�
The word used in the Greek in Joshua 19:29 is not different at all in the Greek but is in our English versions.

Sauron: 4. Furthermore, we know that there were variant spellings in the Septuagint; so many, in fact, that Origen had to work to clean them up. Assuming that the 70 translators working on the Septuagint deliberately intended such a difference as "Tyre" vs. "Sur" simply goes against what we know of the history of the creation of the Septuagint.
Response: This brings up some questions.
I will have to study more on Origen. Where did you get the information that Origen changed the Septuagint and if he did, how much did he change?
Was Ezekiel 26, 27, 28, 29 included? If so, where is that information? I have only read he compiled the Hexapla which included the Septuagint. Furthermore, it seems that part of the problem with the later translators is that they seem to move further away from the original text. That is why we are having this discussion today.
Sauron: I don't know about the book of Judith. But the Septuagint does not make such a distinction.
Response: Given the evidence already, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote:
The modern English versions say "daughters in the field" while the ancient versions (including Hebrew and Latin) say "daughter towns on the mainland".

Sauron: "Daughters in the field" is a Hebrew metaphor for colonies on the mainland. The Hebrew and Latin versions were obviously translating the metaphor that the Hebrew writers used.
Response: Actually, this is a backwards view. The Greek Text is older than any Hebrew text we have today. The Greek word used for field or plain actually means “flat land.� Furthermore, since the Hebrews continued the understanding of this thoughout the centuries and included it in their Masoretic translation, it would seem to be a stamp of approval that it was the mainland and not he island.


Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Sor but could not destroy the island city of Tyre.
Sauron: Yes. And since Ezekiel's prophecy requires the destruction of the island by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophecy failed. From my document on this topic, written as a rebuttal to Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this piece, I am rebutting McDowell's attempt to restrict the Ezekiel prophecy to just the mainland colonies:
Response: It did not require the island because Sor and Tyre are not the same place/word in the original text. Furthermore, It does not matter what Josh McDowell says on the subject. I have his book and I disagree with him on many issues as well. The problem with so many modern day Biblical scholars is that they always try to use the modern texts to support their views which seem to confuse things more. If people would return to the original texts used at the time, then there would be less confusion and not as many contradictions. I would be interested in seeing your piece of work though. I do admire your historical interests.
Sauron: But which city would have been known as The Rock? Would that have been the island city, or the mainland colonies?
Response: In the Greek text the following will take place:
1. I “will make� you into a smooth rock for the refreshing of dragnets into the sea. I don’t remember this happening to the island but it did happen to the mainland, so much, that when Alexander the Great was battling the island, he took the ancient ruins of the city that was once plundered by Nebuchadnezzar and threw it into the sea.
In Isaiah 23, the word used instead of coastland was "island" for tyre. Later, when the island of Tyre was conquered, it faded out for close to seventy years


Sauron: Huh? No, it did not.
Response: I am sure everyone here can read for themselves. Here is just two sites but any LXX will read the same thing.
1. http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-...m/downbook.htm
2. http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/Esaias%20LXX.htm





Sauron: Neither of the prophecies has been fulfilled. Ezekiel fails because Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer the island.
Response: We are just going in circles on this one.

Sauron: I also noticed the following mistakes on your webpage:
1. The region of Tyre was inhabited by Phoenicians. The Phoenicians created the Greek alphabet (thus we have the word “Phonics� today).

No. The word "phonics" comes from the Greek word for "hearing". The name Phoenicia comes probably from the Greek word phoinix, meaning purple red. The reason for this name was the famous purple red dye of the Murex snail that was produced in this region.
Response: I do appreciate this information. Thank you. I try to be open minded and not “hard headed� and we are here to learn. Thanks again. I should have done more research on this one and the situation of Cadmus and Tyre I knew the story was based on urban legend, but read a Phoenician website where the myth was based on a real person. I should have put it on my website. I will change this.

Once Again Sauron. I really appreciate your love for history. It is obvious you study a lot. We may have to agree to disagree on a lot of this stuff, but I do appreciate your efforts for the truth (whatever that may be). I hope we do not see each other as enemies but allies toward finding that truth. J

Take care, Billy

Julian

It would be a lot more readable if you would please use the QUOTE function.

Thanks,
Julian

meforevidence

Historians disagree on how much of the Old Testament Scriptures were translated in Alexandria at the time. Some believe it was only the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy). Others believe it included the Law and the Prophets. Most do agree however that the complete Septuagint that we have today was completed by 150 B.C. This is confirmed by at least two sources. The first one is the actual letters themselves which have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The second is from other ancient documents found in Cave 4 of Qumran (dating back to 150 B.C.) that speak of the translation of the scriptures which included the “law� the “writings� and the “prophets.�

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

If it was a bare rock!

Then you all have to prove it didn't go down! Prove, I mean, and not just demonstrate it was most probable. But even eyewitnesses would not prove this beyond any possible doubt whatsoever.

Those pillars underwater are pretty solid!

I know that is your conclusion! We have yet to hear how archaeology can prove a continuous status, though…

Then the skeptics (here in this thread!) are wrong if I quote them as evidence?

I'm tempted to more irony.

We need more than this, by way of refutation, an assertion does not prove a point.

Yes, this is a point to address. It does seem this island of Hercules is not very well known (via Google), so I'm wondering a bit 1) about this map, 2) about how much people really noticed, if the island was real, and then sank.

Ah...

Choo!

I guess I gave in to the temptation...

Regards,
Lee

noah

Lee, how does a bare rock qualify as something no one in the region would notice, esp a rock the size of Tyre? Are you saying the only formations anybody including geographers,geologists, historians and contemporary commentators care to record and analyse are rock formations with people on them. If so why do we have detailed maps of all the land mases all over the world that show both inhabited and uninhabited land masses?

By the way, you have not proven Tyre was a bare rock. You're putting the cart before the horse here.
You also have not proven Tyre's ever going into the deep blue sea.

How do ruins off shore prove Tyre went underwater,Lee. If they did someone would have written an account of the sinking of Tyre.
Why do all the histroies of this region not mention a land mass as big as Tyre ever disappearing?

I have given you tons of information aboput Tyre and Lebanon's history which do not mention Tyre going underwater,ever.

One again, I am going to furnish you with a set of links that give the history of Tyre and Lebanon,none of which mention Tyre going under the waves:

Since you ducked my first posting of these links, I am going to try again. And I will keep trying until you see them:

I went to the online Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm
Please read it.

Please note:

1) How quickly they pass over Ezekiel and his prophecy
2) how quickly they pass over Neb's siege
3) The continuous uninterupted history they give about Tyre
4) The omission of any mention of Tyre's sinking into the sea.
5) "Although Alexander razed the walls,the city was restored very quickly, since seventeen years later it held out for fourteen months against Antigonus, father of Demetrius Poliorcetes."

Please consult this timeline:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/tyre.htm

Please note from above
3
4

Please look at this brief survey of Tyre's history
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849868.html

Please note from above
3
4
5
Also please note this from infoplease:
It was built on an island just off the mainland, but the accumulation of sand around a mole built by Alexander the Great to facilitate his siege of the city (333–332 B.C.) has formed a causeway more than .5 mi (.8 km) wide.

Please look here:
http://w.encyclopedia.com/html/t/tyre.asp

Please note:

"There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."

3
4

Look here too:
http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/history.html

PLease note:

4

Lee, I'm going to try giving you links to the history of Lebanon. Please note that none of these mention the island of Tyre sinking:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm

http://www.lebguide.com/lebanon/history/default.asp

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/lbtoc.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/le.html

http://www.mountlebanon.org/historyoflebanon.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destina...non/history.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tyre.asp


This is by a noted expert on the history of Lebanon. Note no mention of Tyre sinking or a former Tyre:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/

This shows you that Tyre has been rebuilt Lee. Otherwise ther would be no Phoenician ruins to build on. Or do you require that a city never rebuild or build over its previous structures in order to have space for the new buildings?

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town.Please note, no mention of Tyre sinking anywhere in the article.
http://www.phoenicia.org/cities.html

PLease note here in this article, no mention made of Tyre sinking either slowly ot quickly at anytime:
http://www.phoenicia.org/history.html

In this article , no mention is made of Tyre ever sinking:
http://www.arab.net/lebanon/

Here is a geographical history of Lebanon:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projec...otes/index.html
Note no mention of Tyre ever sinking slowly or otherwise.

Same here:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projec...ogy-of-lebanon/

All these pictures have been taken at or near the old city.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projec...ogy-of-lebanon/

Here's a map of Phoenicia. Note Tyre on it:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...ngeog/geog.html

Here's a history of Phoenicia:
http://www.elkhazen.org/lebanon/his...y_phoenicia.asp

Here's more from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Lebanon:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09104a.htm

Lee, I went some fifteen pages into google under hisory of Tyre and history of Lebanon. Nowhere could I find any mention of Tyre going underwater.

lee_merrill

Hi Noah,

Do you know the state of every large rock island on every coast around the world? May we look them up in a catalog, and find out how they're doing? People lose interest, I would say.

They did a satellite survey, that is true. But probably not the Greeks or Romans! They had no such scientific interest.

The heart before the course? Heart-first is probably a good way to go in these discussions, though.

Well, if it's underwater, then it probably does resemble a featureless rock at this point.

Yes, that is the 24 zillion dollar question here. What I can do is offer the evidence I might have, and let people evaluate it. Which is what you must do, too!

Because people generally build above water?

I can't seem to find an account of the island of Hercules sinking, either, though.

Well, I've posted my response twice, so I'm not going to paste it again, the next step would be to respond to my response now, I think…

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

1. I didn't say that "Tyre" was how it is pronounced in Greek.

2. The linguistic washing machine - whenever a word gets passed through several languages on its way to English, it often gets changed linguistically. Many of the original forms of names (Egyptian, Persian, etc.) get changed when the Hebrews transcribed them. They got changed again in the Greek or Latin. So they've been through at least two cycles of being Hebraicized or Hellenized, before arriving to English. For example, the English name Cyrus comes from the Hebrew Kurash. But the original person was Kshatriyah.

Kshatriyah --> Kurash --> Cyrus.

Same thing is true here. You have an original Phoenician city, that the Hebrews named, and then that name was transcribed into Greek. It's entirely normal for the name to get mangled up as a result of that process. This happens in all languages.

3. Since the Hebrew name for this city starts with a tsade, it can be transcribed as either Tyre or Sur. The tsadeh has no equivalent in English, but it sounds like crushing the letter "t" together with the letter "s".

4. There's also another linguistic effect going on here, known as Grimm's Law. Certain letters often get interchanged between languages, such as:

d--> t --> z --> s --> sh

Which is why we have the Hebrew word "satan" being the linguistic cousin to the word "titan" in Greek. It's also why the Hebrew word for charity (tzadekeh, if I recall) is linguistic cousin to the Arabic word for almsgiving (sadaaqah). So again: "Tyre" and "Sur" are the same city, undergoing spelling changes as a result of being passed through several languages.

No, it is not. Sur is just another way of spelling Tyre.

And as I already explained, that proves nothing. We know that there are variant spellings in the Greek text.

Your own source refutes you. (I can't copy it here because the PDF text won't copy, but the interlinear clearly states in 26:4 that Sur

• will become a smooth rock,
• a place for refreshing dragnets,
• in the midst of the sea; and that
• her daughters in the plain will be done away with

The Greek interlinear says all this about Sur - the name of the town that you claim was supposedly just on the mainland. But the comments above clearly indicate that the island city is being talked about. This is especially clear with the last point; "her daughters in the plain" only makes sense from the perspective of the *island city*.

You wanted to pay attention to context? Well the context refutes your position.

This is a turn of phrase; you are mistaking a turn of phrase. IT is as if a verse said "blessings upon David, even the lord's beloved" - and you assumed that (1) David and (2) the lord's beloved must be two different people. The turn of phrase indicates that they are the same. That is why the English translation of Ezekiel 27:32 -- the verse you are focusing on -- reads as follows (Young's Literal Translation):

32And lifted up for thee have their sons a lamentation, And they have lamented over thee, who [is] as Tyre? As the cut-off one in the midst of the sea?

And in the NASB:

32"Moreover, in their wailing they will take up a (AS)lamentation for you
And lament over you:
'Who is like Tyre,
Like her who is silent in the midst of the sea?

You've built an entire argument based upon your unfortunate misunderstanding of a turn of phrase.

1. How Russians and Arabians pronounce it is very relevant, as it demonstrates the linguistic process whereby the Greek text shows two variant spellings for the same city.

2. We are *not* discussing the language of the time. We are discussing the Greek translation of Hebrew documents written hundreds of years before the Alexandrian effort. It was a Greek effort full of errors, stretched out over decades. And those Hebrew documents described a Phoenician city - all reasons to suspect variant spellings. (As if the Origen reference from Britannica wasn't sufficient.)

I don't know about Judith, but the LXX does not separate them. You're confused.

The original context -- as demonstrated above -- shows that Sur was the island city.

And in some places the LXX is wrong, or is not the best translation - all bible translators are aware of that fact. Your unquestioning allegiance to the LXX only demonstrates that you either don't know the history of its creation, or you don't care that it has mistakes in it.

Wrong. Young's literal translation again:

29and the border hath turned back to Ramah, and unto the fenced city Tyre; and the border hath turned back to Hosah, and its outgoings are at the sea, from the coast to Achzib,

It specifically calls out the city, and notes that it is fenced. That is the place it is talking about - only a *place* can be fenced. Even in the interlinear Greek, it is obvious that a place is being described; the interlinear says "unto the fortress city of the Tyrians". A fortress city is a place.

You skipped the reference to Tyrus in Jeremiah. Let me remind you that it is yet another example of a variant spelling for Tyre.

*sigh* No, the word is the same in our English versions. All the English versions say "Tyre".

1. Britannica is the source - although the information is well known to anyone to has studied bible translation.

2. I don't know how much he changed. But the fact that you are worried about it suggests that you believe the LXX is some kind of perfect and flawless document, against which all others should be referenced.

1. By putting the text into Greek, they already moved away from the original text -- in a big way.

2. We're having this discussion today because you don't seem to realize that the LXX has variant spellings.

Hmm.

So? That is irrelevant. The Greek text of the LXX would have transcribed the Hebrew metaphor. So the prophetic metaphor originally existed in Hebrew, and was transcribed into Greek for the Hellenized Jews of the period.

The fact that the Hebrews include the metaphor in the Masoretic text only lends weight to my argument -- to wit, that the metaphor was a Hebrew one to begin with. Here's another Hebrew metaphor that got transcribed to Greek: "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." You've find that one in the LXX, and in the Masoretic text. But the metaphor itself is Hebrew, not Greek.

Finally, the Masoretic text does not put any "stamp of approval" on the phony distinction you are trying to create between "Tyre" and "Sur."

Yes, they are - as evidenced by the bullet-point list I provided in this post, up above.

I agree - it did not happen that way to the island. However, the *prophecy* says that it was SUPPOSED to happen that way to the island city of Tyre. The island city was SUPPOSED to be destroyed. But Nebuchadnezzar was not able to do that - and so, that is why the prophecy failed.

Yes, but you are trying to force-fit the prophecy into the historical record. That is cheating. The prophecy says that the island was going to be destroyed, ALONG WITH the daughter colonies on the mainland. That is why Ezekiel speaks both of the island, as well as the daughters in the field.

Destroying only the mainland colonies is not sufficient to prove the prophecy was fulfilled; especially since the island city of Tyre was the main prize - not the minor colonies on the mainland.

Those are just reference sites for searchable versions of the LXX. That's not proof for your claims, though. You have four claims wrapped up in that paragraph, none of which are true. Here are the four claims:

1. Isaiah 23, the word used instead of coastland was "island" for tyre.

Tyre was an island, and had BOTH a coastline on that island as well as on its mainland colonies. Both terms are correct when referring to Tyre.

2. Later, when the island of Tyre was conquered,

It was not conquered - not until Alexander, and even then only temporarily. 18 years later it was back in business and up to full speed.


3. it faded out for close to seventy years

No, it didn't "fade out" for close to 70 years. It took less than two decades for Tyre to become a military threat and an economic powerhouse again.

Your fourth claim is that the text of the Isaiah prophecy indicates a role for Tyre that it has never played:

ISA 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

ISA 23:18 And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the LORD: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the LORD, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing.

Tyre never played such a role in history.

Maybe you are, but I'm going in a very purposeful straight line here.

Sauron

1. Which it wasn't.

2. If a trading center like Manhattan Island had been (a) turned into a bare rock and then (b) sank, that's only more reason why people would have noticed.

No, it's your claim that it happened. Your claim, your job to prove it.

Says who? You? How do you know?

Oh, that's right - you're a part time archaeologist, architect, and expert on ancient military tactics. Silly me.

1. It's not my conclusion, it's historical fact. Tyre was the pre-eminent trading center of the eastern Mediterranean at this time.

2. Continuous status - you need to educate yourself on archaeology, lee. Don't expect us to spoonfeed you everything, especially since the jig is up and we all know you're not sincere. I already gave you the hint you need to find the answer yourself. Which you might do, if you weren't just playing games.

No, the skeptics are right. Since you take the opposite argument of the skeptics, quoting them is self-destructive to your argument. Citing your opponent when your opponent disagrees with you is either stupid - or just a game to waste time.

Guess which one it is, folks.....

Too bad the temptation of research never seems to affect you.

Since your argument is basically a bunch of assertions and hypotheticals strung together like xmas lights, we actually *don't* need more than this.

Wonder all you like. The fact still stands:

1. a minor island used to exist, and then sunk.
2. the world noticed.

Your claim that Tyre, a trading center like Manhattan, could (a) be wiped off and made a bare rock and then (b) sink -- without ANYONE noticing -- is lame.

badger3k

Here's another bit of advice you'll ignore - learn about sailing and other maritime matters - it might make you avoid making mistakes like this.

Ancient maps were worth their weight in gold precisely because they recorded things like bare rocks. Until the advent of things like astrolabes and compasses (and another one whose name I can't remember), the only way to tell where a ship was would be to look at the area. While the position of the sun might give general approximations, most sailors relied upon coastlines and such features as rocks and islands. That's why a lot of ancient sailors were coastal and avoided going out of sight of land. Furthermore, bare rocks (and especially ones that suddenly went underwater) would have been recorded by everyone and their brother since it would be a hazard to shipping (ie running aground or ripping the bottom out of the boat were problems with submerged features). People don't lose interest in something that can kill them.

For historical interest, why not look into the matter of the Athenian Navy, which played a huge part in the battles of the time (long before Alexander, btw) - the Greeks were sailors.

Besides, that still leaves out the odd idea you have that a major port in the world at that time could sink and disappear without anyone noticing it.

Sauron

Unless of course, the pillars are:

1. rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
2. part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
3. from another military event.
4. the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
5. an ancient port/dock that fell out of use and was simply allowed to fall into the sea over which it was positioned.

We know items 1-5 happened. Which makes any of them more likely than your National Enquirer version of Tyre sinking without anyone noticing. But you already know that.

Games and more games.....