Sauron

A good idea? It is? Really?

Are you sure? I only ask, because we've never seen YOU do it.

So why don't you follow your own advice, whenever we find your claims implausible? Is this another one of your requirements that only works in one direction? I.e., you require it of your opponents but will not do it yourself?

But you don't even have evidence. You have what-if claims and scenarios you try to build out of the air.

Gleason Archer is not a historian or a geologist. He is a theologian.

But your response to Don does not contain any evidence that Tyre sank. That is why Don, noah, and myself are pursuing you, trying to get you to provide it.

You want to know what is REALLY wearing, lee? Reading page after page of you backpedaling, creating what-if scenarios, and generating excuse after excuse to keep the Tyre prophecy from the junk heap.

As I said, lee: you only get what you deserve. If you treated your opponents with respect, and if you held yourself to the same debating standards that you try to impose upon others, then you'd get treated much better. A prime example stands above: where you expect others to provide proof for something you think is implausible, but you refuse to do that yourself. Why should anyone tolerate a hypocrite, or suffer a fool silently?

Let's remember: it did not start out this way. For months I plowed through page after page of material, discussing the topic of Tyre with you. But then it became beyond obvious that you were only playing games and weren't going to lift a finger to support your claims. So I decided not to bother any longer.

You apparently thought you would lay low for a few months, bide your time, and then re-start the same debate, with the same claims that were refuted earlier. You're like a phony investment manager who blows into town, fleeces a bunch of unsuspecting investors, and then leaves without a word, moving on to the next town of innocent investors. Only this time, one of the previous investors has followed you to the next town, and is ruining your tea party by telling everyone how you behaved earlier.

So my function here is quite valid. I'm providing useful and valuable background data on the earlier Tyre debate, for anyone who missed it. Now I point out your inconsistencies, contradictions and double-standards. Apparently you don't like having a spotlight thrown on your dishonest behavior.

Putting me on your "ignore" list won't solve the problem. The hard questions that I am asking you -- the ones you are running from -- those same questions are being asked by other people besides me. Putting me on 'ignore' won't make the hard questions go away. Moreover, I will still be able to see your posts, and I will still respond to them. It doesn't bother me at all to point out your mistakes to the entire audience. If you choose not to respond, that is your problem.

No, you tried to *claim* that I was doing them. However, I am not doing those things - but you are. So your post was another example of dishonesty.

Except they have seen you being dishonest, creating ad hoc excuses, failing to research your claims, and tossing out what-if scenarios in support of your affirmative claim. I have not done so.

dongiovanni1976x

(Proof) Old French: preove, "evidence to establish the fact of (something),"
(Establish) Old French: establiss-, stem of establir, from L. stabilire "make stable," from stabilis "stable"

Lee, do you have any geological or geomorphic stability to your assertion? Or is your assertion nothing more than conjecture?

(Conjecture) Latin: conicere "to throw together," from com- "together" + iacere "to throw."


(I would add #5 for Lee, which I think he would have wanted in here and he does mention at other times, #1. We have Phoenician ruins (5th cent. pottery shards and a breached 5th cent phoenician wall)
#2. This is conjecture, as we have addressed earlier- Ushu was dumped ito the sea to form the causeway and the southern harbor is under water so it is natural to see ruins underwater.
#3 This is a non sequitur and no evidence, literary or archaeological, linked to any putative earthquake at Tyre.
#4 Lee, admits this is a very weak argument and Sauron has shown many maps of peninsulas that have irregular shapes. This point needs to drop completely.
#5. It is evidence that such a thing is a possibility but the prophecy said that Tyre would never be found again (26:21) and as long as Lee admits to the location of the Egyptian harbor being underwater and its northern neighbor, the Sidonian harbor being above water, he has successfully located this ancient city that was supposedly to be lost forever.

noah

Don't know what your point is here Lee. I posted my response to you on June 4. You were posting here on May 29, June 1 and June 3.

Maybe it was connected. I can not get a firm answer on this from any of my sources. I have read the island of Hercules was not connected. I wrote to the webmaster of Phoenicia.org and he first told me Tyre and the island of Hercules were not connected. Then he wrote me to tell me he thought they might be. So for now this point to me at least is unsettled.

I will say however that only a part of Tyre sinking , however big or small, still destroys the prophecy since any part of Tyre still above the waves means Ezekiel was wrong.

Lee this argument is patently absurd and you know it. Tyre is right where it always has been. It never sank. Mounds of photographic evidence posted in this and other Tyre threads prove Tyre is right where it always was.

You're trying to make it seem as though there are two equal sides with two reasonable positions in this debate. There aren't. There is only you here claiming against all the evidence that Tyre sank into the sea.
You are undeterred by maps that show Tyre right where it always was. You are amazingly unphased by your utter and total lack of scholarly support for your position. You have no geomorphological support for your position that Tyre sank. You can come up with no, repeat no, evidence that the region ever underwent the trauma of a land mass like Tyre sinking into the waves.
There is no written record anywhere that Tyre sank. No contemporary writer ever mentioned anything about Tyre ever sinking.
Why I use the word "contemporary" is anyone's guess. You can't even tell us when Tyre supposedly sank.

Your argument that I can't prove Tyre never sank is illogical.

Do I have to prove Manhattan never sank Lee?

How about Iceland? Do I have to prove Iceland didn't sink?

I have an idea Lee. And I'm serious. I am going to assert that Manhattan sank. You are going to prove to me that it did not. OK? I'm serious. In proving my position that Manhattan sank I am going to limit myself only to the same criteria that you have held yourself to here.

Affirmed. Manhattan sank.

I have stated my position Lee. It is now your turn to prove to me that it did not. In other words Lee, it's your move.

You want a separate thread for this? You got it.

Who cares? Archer's an apologist. It's his job to say things that confirm the faith. It's not his job to be objective. He's a theologian. He is not a real scholar. He woud never say anything that hurt the faith. He's a biased source. He has no standing with any academic or other scholarly source or organization

Actually Lee the issue if you recall was not checking prior posts. It was reading my direct response to you.

In any case I asked you to post proof of your claim that Tyre sank. After reviewing your "proof" I have to ask once again: Please provide "proof" that Tyre sank.

Here's lee's "proof" that Tyre sank:

Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. This is not proof. This is a "maybe" and a low odds maybe at that. As more and more digs are done more and more Phoenician ruins will come to light.
As Sauron has repeatedly (over and over) told you (and you wonder why we "sneer" at you), the Phoenician ruins are known to be under Tyre. The Encyclopedia Britannica states

Soundings are being conducted to determine the exact location of the Phoenician ruins.

Second why limit yourself to discovery of ruins under the Roman ruins? We have Phoenician ruins and artifacts above ground - 5th cent. pottery shards and a breached 5th cent Phoenician wall as Don has pointed out.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica has posted a picture of a road "through the ancient ruins" of Tyre.
We have Phoenician ruins on Tyre itself. People are living in and around them as Prof.Dr. Erdal Özhan points out in his short essay on coastal erosion management in the Mediterranean.
There's a phoenician cemetery on Tyre that was discovered in 1991.

That's it Lee. Game over, Prophecy fails.

What on earth does this prove? So what? Who cares? You can find ruins of other cites offshore in other places.
You can't prove that these ruins constitute all of Tyre. You keep forgetting that all of Tyre has to sink beneath the waves. Ruins underwater does not equal Tyre ever sinking entirely beneath the waves. Use your head man!
Sauron presented you with a historically verifiable list of sources for the ruins underwater. You have yet to explain any of these real possibilities away:
1. They could be rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
2. They could be part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
3. Or, rubble from another military event.
4. It could be the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
5. It may even be that the rubble represents an ancient port/dock that fell out of use and was simply allowed to fall into the sea over which it was positioned.
6. As Don pointed out "Ushu was dumped into the sea to form the causeway and the southern harbor is under water so it is natural to see ruins underwater."

Again, what on earth does this do for your argument. I guess you have to be a Christian fundamentalist desperate to protect your faith to know.

First, who has concluded that Tyre sank because an island next to it sank?

Second, where in any geomorphic journal or study or text is there any mention of Tyre ever sinking because of an earthquake? Where is the evidence the region would show after suffering a trauma of this magnitude?

Third, who ever recorded such an event? Please tell us why no historian ever mentions Tyre sinking because of an earthquake.

Fourth, prove the fault line was ever active.

Fifth, so what if there is a fault line in the region. I live on doozy. Have I sunk to the bottom Lee? Has L.A.?

This argument isn't even weak. Don's being too charitable. "Weak" sounds like it exists. "Weak" sounds like it deserves to be acknowledged.
Peninsulas come in all shapes and sizes. There is no prerequisite(s) for a land mass to "look like" a peninsula. It merely has to jut out into the water.

From the Oxford dictionary:

I would say I can't believe you tried this one Lee but I'd be lying.

As Don said, this one should be dropped immediately.


Lee Merrill has yet to prove:

1) That Tyre sank

2) That Tyre was ever made a bare rock

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: May I ask specifically why you believe that the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired?

bfniii

in the other tyre threads, i made several posts that outlined how ezekiel is using symbolic imagery to refer to the nation, not the buildings and structures.



verses 8 - 12 do seem to indicate physical destruction that will be executed by nebuchadnezzar. by contrast, verses 13 and 14 begin with "I will" meaning a ubiquitous, cultural destruction carried out by God himself such as the songs being silenced.



in verse 20 God says He will "bring you down with those". the word "those" means nation or people. that obviously doesn't refer to a place. additionally, "the pit" is sheol, not the bottom of the ocean.



both of which could refer to the nation, not the city, especially given the context.



the word used for "bare" means shining, glowing or exposed. the process to make a rock become like that entails wearing the rock down just as the nation of tyre would become, worn down both physically and politically. the surface characteristics of the rock are worn down and the rock is reshaped however the reshaper sees fit. whatever the nation of tyre had become, it would be worn down and exposed.

dongiovanni1976x

They could also have been written by Aliens from alpha centauri.

The prophecy was directed against the city as has been REPEATEDLY demonstrated to you. Your arbitrary distinctions where you claim that "this verse here uses the pronoun 'I' so it needs to be read in a general vague sesnse and so even though it clearly refers to the city it should not be interpreted that way, and see that verse over there, it needs to be read as if it was part of the cultural milieu instead of what it says, while the one after it needs to be seen as if it was God talking himself which means it is right no matter what anyways so just accept it" have no merit.

The prophecy said that Tyre would be made into an uninhabited city and that NEVER happened.

Sheol was believed to be under the great waters so when the prophecy says that the great waters will cover Tyre and Tyre will descend into the Pit, this ties right into mindset of the day.

Cities are nouns and inorder to refer to them without using their proper name you replace them with a pronoun- this sadly is what your whole position rests upon.

Ezekiel is so pissed at Tyre that he is predicting such a devastating end that Tyre will CEASE to exist and be nothing but rubble to fall into the sea, never to be found again.

I do not understand how you cannot understand this. I seriously cannot.
:huh:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I think you are saying I don’t have conclusive proof, but then neither do you! There is evidence on both sides, thus a discussion ensues.

I have presented arguments and evidence again and again, yet it seems you require an indisputable proof, which neither I nor anyone else has at the moment. So we weigh the evidence.

Well, again, we both have evidence, which must be weighed, and no one here now can (I would say) be completely certain.

You have however, concluded without finishing the discussion! We were discussing this wall still, so to quote it to me as your refutation will not now convince me. And pottery does not show ruins, I think it makes my case stronger, to find such pottery, without the potter’s houses.

Apart from the causeway, though? And Jidejian says “until recently, the ruins of Tyre above water were few” (p. 13), referring to these ruins underwater, so I think this means not leftover rubble from the causeway, nor just a sunken harbor, but the type of ruins you would expect to find aboveground, ruins of a city.

By the way, I think “ruins of Tyre above water” refers to this: “The ruins of an aqueduct and a few scattered columns and the ruins of a Christian basilica were the only remains found above ground” (p. 20), so this would not imply Phoenician ruins.

Time for Sauron to chime in and say I have no arguments?

This is odd indeed, though, now how many earthquakes got recorded in ancient history? The records are scanty, and so I think we should not make a case based on a lack of a seismograph printout here.

I actually don’t agree with Sauron, he says “t’aint!” and I say “’tis!” and that seems to be about the way this will have to be left for any others to ponder.

Yet I refer again to my response to Gullwind on this very point.

The map seems quite clear, though.

If you are correct! I also have my second position I think defensible, though, which allows for this, if you show my first one is false.

What mound, though? I need to see acknowledged-by-consensus Phoenician walls, for starters.

You are undeterred by maps of the island Hercules! And ruins at the sea bottom, but not under current Roman and Greek layers. So there…

But they have indeed dug for them where they expected to find them! So this is becoming less probable, that such layers are there. Why are they not there among the pottery? That usually indicates a place to search for ruins.

Which means he had many interests and areas of expertise! A smart fellow indeed.

Right, now what ruins were these? Roman? Greek? I expect they were one of these, or we would hear rather prominently of Phoenician ruins from the tourist agents.

To quote Sauron!: “You want to know what is REALLY wearing, lee? Reading page after page of you backpedaling, creating what-if scenarios, and generating excuse after excuse…”

Well, this reference seems to be a presentation mentioning earthquakes in the area of Tyre. Just did a quick search, there may be more...

And again, if it’s underwater, then we can’t really tell.

But Jidejian says the current area was indeed practically a bare rock, as seen by several visitors.

If it’s underwater now, that’s pretty impressive to predict!

Yes, quite so…

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

I said exactly what I *meant* to say. Nothing you have offered constitutes evidence for your claim.

No, there is evidence on my side, and what-ifs and conjecture on yours.

However only one of us is actually interested and educated in the topic.

You, on the other hand, are just wasting everyone's time. After all, if you were sincere, would you be ignoring posts with links? Would you be pretending that your ideas hadn't been rebutted 20 times already? Would you be creating endless what-if scenarios, instead of supporting your previous claims?

No. These are the marks of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, it takes two for discussion. I guess that means it will be me and someone else, though. Your behavior shows you are only interested in playing internet debate games and seeing how many people you can get to jump through your hoops. This is not a discussion; it's an exercise in watching you backpedal. If it were a discussion, you would hold yourself to the same standards of behavior you ask from others.

No, lee. You haven't. Your "arguments" are nothing more than what-ifs. You have not produced evidence. All you have produced has been a flotilla of conjectures that do not tie into, or support, your central claims. And then you expect others to shoot down your conjectures, in a transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No. I have evidence. Don has evidence. noah has evidence. You have nothing except claims and a bunch of I.O.U.s that you haven't made good on yet.

The fact that the wall exists on the island **at all** refutes your claim about no Phoenician ruins above water.

Tossing out stupid responses pretty early in the exchange, lee. Are you trying to buy yourself some time?

1. Pottery- you still don't know what function ostracae serve in archaeology, do you?

2. Pottery, part 2 - it's probably news to you, but pottery is found in other locations than just the potter's house. In fact, it isn't of very much use to the society if it never leaves the potter's own house.

1. Yes, apart from the causeway.

2. Jidejian's quote contains the destruction of your earlier claim about no ruins above water. Since we are now in the time period "recently", the ruins of Tyre that are above water are MORE than few.

Except that rubble is a form of ruins. We already had that discussion once before, and you lost.

Which reminds me of another reason why your claim of Tyre sinking is tragically busted: if we assume your assertion correct, there must have been a time *before* Tyre sunk. In that situation, looking at the city from above, you would have this absurd scenario:

(N)

||||||||||||||||||||||
|||ISLAND OF TYRE|||
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Egyptian port ~
|~ ~ ~ ~ ~
|
|
0O 0 o 0
columns
O 0 O o 0

In the "pre-sinking" era of Tyre, the columns are on the wrong side of the port. They should be north of the port, not south of it. Unless you want to explain why the Tyrians would have created a port *on dry land* between the island and the columns.

No, you desperately *hope* that it does. But there is no evidence to support you. And as we saw from our earlier discussion, you are very poor at reading Jidejian's mind and often twist her words to help your arguments out. Of course, I catch you when you do it. :devil3:

You don't have any arguments - none that weren't already shot down earlier, that is.

You tried to downplay the idea of ancient civilizations recording earthquakes earlier, until you realized that we weren't going to take that assumption at face value. I also pointed out to you that there are modern-day methods to discover ancient earthquakes, which bypass the need for ancient recordings.

I see you've learned how to hyperlink. Unfortunately, the article you hyperlinked to does not support you claim of scanty records. In fact, it impliles the exact opposite:

Archaeological and historical data support Nur's hypothesis. According to written records, the Holy Land has been shaken by 11 devastating earthquakes since 1400 B.C. At Megiddo, three layers of destruction cannot be explained by the invasion of foreign armies. In addition, the excavation of sites far to the north and to the south suggests that additional cities were damaged at the same time as Megiddo. This regional pattern of destruction is consistent with a massive earthquake along the Carmel fault.

There's apparently more than enough records for Nur to launch into a detailed hypothesis such as the above. Whether you buy Nurs hypothesis or not, the bald fact here is that you didn't read your own source before making a statement about "scanty claims". How many times are you going to make that particular blunder?

No, you say "it is" and I say "prove it". To which you respond with another assertion or made-up claim about the shape of peninsulas, but predictably you avoid proving that they are similar to Florida. Of course, me posting large pictures of obviously non-Florida-like peninsulas in the thread kinda shoots down all your protests. :rolling:

Of course, you can prove me wrong anytime you like: show how the Crimean peninsula looks like Florida, lee:





Which doesn't answer the question. Care to try again?

Of course he is correct. Since:

1. there is still an island of Tyre today,
2. with Phoenician ruins on it,

we know that at least part -- a BIG part -- of the island didn't sink. That is, assuming your fantasy hypothesis about sinking in the first place.

You still have the burden of proof reversed. IT's not up to use to show your positions false; it's up to you to show that they are true.

He means "whole bunches of". As in all the photo from the previous two monster threads. Your argument requires that Tyre must have vanished at some point in the past. There is zero evidence for that. All the available evidence -- ALL of it -- shows that Tyre hasn't moved.

Actually, you need to prove that Tyre could have sunk and then explain how it rose again first. You're the one with the claim here, remember?

Probably because it's not the island of Tyre. Showing me that my neighbor's house burned down does not prove that MY house burned down. Funny how that works.

1. The ruins at the sea bottom have already been explained.

2. Who says there are no ruins under Roman and Greek layers?

3. Given the fact that areas are often cleared before laying down new foundations, I'm not sure what this would prove anyhow.

Says who? You? A claim about the goals of archaeology and excavation in the region? Lee, are you pretending to be an archaeologist again? Tsk, tsk. You did this before; you didn't so so well, remember?

1. Describe the digs that (you think) have been going on - you claim they have been digging, so you should be able to tell us when, where, under whose sponsorship is the dig being hosted, which experts are involved, etc. No extrapolations or "mind reading" attempts derived from tourist web sites, please.

4. Now demonstrate that there *should* be Phoenician ruins there - by that I mean, you need to rule out:

a. historical factors such as Alexander's actions in building the mole;
b. engineering requirements for a solid/flat foundation to build new buildings upon (thus necessitating the removal of previous layers);

3. Now show evidence of no Phoenician ruins - admissions or statements by the experts involved are necessary here;

4. Finally, show that the previoiusly mentioned social situation in Lebanon isn't causing the parties involved to hide or downplay discoveries of Phoenician artifacts.

If you have any sites that survive this rather ordinary test of your intellectual horsepower, then we'll have something to talk about.

No, it's just another one of your ad hoc claims that you stitched together by combining an assumption with bad logic.

That's funny; earlier you seemed to think that pottery indicated a potter's house. Your argument jumps around a lot - did you know that?

Layers are not "among the pottery", any more than geologic strata lie "among the fossils". As we have come to expect, you have the relationships reversed. Pottery lies among archaeological layers, just as fossils lie within geologic strata.

It's statements like this last one of yours that demonstrate your deliberate lack of self-education on the very same topics you want to argue.

No, it means that his primary interest is not history or archaeology, and he has a self-confessed bias. Moreover, there is no correlation between being an apologist and having lots of interests; in fact, it's usually the opposite: apologists deliberately avoid too much exposure to information.

Finally, you forget the original context:

1. We said that no historian or archaeologist believes the Tyre stories you have been spouting.
2. You brought up Gleason Archer.
3. But Archer is not a historian or an archaeologist, regardless of how smart you think he is.
4. You lose.

We've already been through the flaws in your "argument from silence" as well.

I don't HAVE to support these statements, lee. You know why? You should know; after all, you've been told a thousand times:

1. You are the one with the affirmative claim for Tyre sinking. You need to rule out these other far more reasonable and likely possibilities.

2. We know that these items all occurred in Tyre's past. There is NO evidence for Tyre sinking. On that basis alone, any one of these explanations does a much better job of explaining rubble in the water than your silly idea does.

3. Perhaps if you ever do that, as well as support your encyclopedia of previous unsupported claims, at that point you MIGHT be in a position to ask others to support their statements. But right now you are so far overdrawn at the Bank of Credibility that bankruptcy is your only real option.

Ah. After telling you for 13 pages that you needed to prove your claim, you finally decided to use Google. Well, I suppose it's progress.

Too bad that nothing in this presentation supports the idea of an earthquake that sunk the island of Tyre. And you still need a way to get Tyre back ABOVE the waves again, since that is where it's found today.

Like I said earlier: you must think that the island is some kind of whack-a-mole at God's County Fair or something.



Uh, no. She doesn't. You're twisting her statements about Renan again. That didnt' work the last time; why would you try it again, I wonder?

1. But it isn't underwater.

2. What would be impressive about predicting than a small island went underwater anyhow? You have a bizarre sense of what is impressive. Now if there was a prediction that an entire DESERT would be underwater, that would be impressive. Got anything like that, lee?

Johnny Skeptic

Not at all. There is no evidence that the mainland settlement was ever underwater except during temporary flooding from storms. Regarding the island settlement, oceanographers will tell you that historically, thousands of islets and islands became partially or completely covered with water.

If the island settlement were not now underwater, you would still be a Christian, and you would come up with some other ridiculous "evidence" why the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired. If a Muslim predicted that a specific island would become covered with water, you certainly wouldn't become a Muslim.

You have spent years of your life debating trivial matters. It is God's nature that is the most important topic. Even if he can predict the future, that is not sufficient reason for people to accept him. All that it takes to predict the future is power, not good character. I submit that the God of the Bible does not have good character and should not be accepted.

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message, he couldn't possibly care whether or not you debate the Bible, but he does care about making war on mankind with hurricanes. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" It would be quite natural for someone who liked to make people blind, deaf, and dumb to also attack them with hurricanes. Is your justification for God's barbaric behavior that Adam and Eve ate some fruit that he told them not to eat?

Why do God’s judgments have to be right? Do you believe that might makes right?

bfniii

and i have responded to that. here is one such response from post #626 in the tyre thread.

alexander wiping out the remnants of tyre and setting up a government of his own choosing just isn't the same thing as tyrians surviving the attacks, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and continuing their own government. by the time alexander set up a political establishment there, tyre had been completely dissolved. the only reason people were even there physically is because alexander allowed it.



maybe not in one single post but i know that you are grown up enough to put them together. this discussion has been going on in three different threads for months. you know exactly what my stance is on each of the occurrences. if you don't, then you should drop out of the discussion because you should be able to reproduce my posts, verbatim, at this point.



i disagree; and certainly not by you.



there is no switch there. he states daughter villages in 8 and continues on with that thought until 12. "I will" ushers in a new line of thought.