Originally Posted by deadman_932

I don't take your word for it. Cite your references. Here's one of mine:

A kilometer is about 1093 yards...and the article states it was less than a Km.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Ok, Nebby and Tyre ended in a draw. So if Tyre was strong enough to end a confict in a draw it wouldn't be powerful enough to survive a 13 year siege,right?

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. This was already addressed in the previous thread. You failed to respond to it.

2. Please present evidence that all of Bablyon's weapons were land-based.



No it isn't. Historians quite plainly tell us that Babylon sieged Tyre - yet failed.


Personally witnessing it is unnecessary.


No, because he was sieging the city and continued the siege for 13 years. They were at a stalemate, and both sides wanted a face-saving way to call it a draw.


Why did *who* resist Greece? When?


It won't do much good; you don't know enough about the history to even being discussing this intelligently.



No, they come one right after another. In fact, military planners refer to waves of bombers or waves of cavalry, all happening during the same battle.


No, it isn't.


Except that is not what the Babylonian army was. Each of the tribute nations was required to send a certain number of soldiers, horsemen and chariots as part of their tribute payment. It may have been one army, but it was still an army of "many nations".


Wrong. When are you going to learn not to argue scripture with people who know it better than you do?

The text says both - in typical Hebrew poetic fashion, it repeats the theme twice:

EZE 26:3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
EZE 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.
[...]
EZE 26:9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Verses 1-6 lay out the destruction in general terms. Then at v7, Ezekiel repeats the destruction mentioned earlier, but now he names the agent of destruction: Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon.

So unless you are stupid enough to think that Nebuchadnezzar himself was wielding an axe in this battle, it's obviously a figurative usage that encompasses the entire army.

Not that it helps much, since the target of the prophecy was the island city, not the suburbs on the mainland. And "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) failed to conquer that.


How laughable. What proof have you given that they did not possess battering rams? What evidence have you given that they did not have ships (or that some of the tribute allies had ships)?

I asked you this before - you lacked the courage to answer it - here's another chance to see if you have any spine:

You have yet to prove that Nebuchadnezzar didn't understand the need for boats when conquering an island. You really think that he marched tens of thousands of soldiers six months from Babylon, and didn't realize that boats would be needed to conquer an island city?

You also seem to forget that a causeway existed. REmember? You misidentified the author of my source as being a co-author of the Da Vinci code? :rolling:

So not only have you brought zero evidence to support your claim of no ships and no battering rams, but you have never dealt with the fact that a causeway existed.

The rest of your drivel is like the above: repetition of already-refuted points.

Originally Posted by deadman_932

I don't take your word for it. Cite your references. Here's one of mine:

A kilometer is about 1093 yards...and the article states it was less than a Km.

Zeke the freak: 26:19 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: When I shall make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep on you, and the great waters shall cover you;

Just another false prophecy, as vapid as Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever...

I don't want a derail here...I'm just pointing out that there's more than one failed prophecy that literalists can't deal with except by shady empty claims and really bad apologetics suffused with fallacies and rhetorical bullshit.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No, it's quite correct. From my own paper on the topic:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Zek names not one weapon used in sea battles for Nebby. History says that Nebby siege the island but does not give any detail what-so-ever why? Because he didnt. And no there was no causeway you found one source who says this where did he get this information that general history does not mention? hmmmm. History has it that there was indeed a city on the mainland, and not just a "suburb." Isaiah has Tyre restablishing itself after the seventy year rule of Babylon. Jeremiah has Tyre listed as one of the nations who would SERVE Babylon for seventy years. Tyre was not to be completely destroyed by any army, but only when God bury it deep beneath the sea. Oh by the way can you cite any historical source that gives details about Nebby sieging Island Tyre. And not your imaginary assumptions?
And Israel and Tyre proves that God Exist, more proof is sure to come stick around. :wave:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You obviously don't understand that "opening the gates' means entering the city. Let's see if you "get it" from the jewishencyclopedia.com