dongiovanni1976x

Bfniii, I can see what you mean. I understand. But I do question how the parts that do specifically refer to the city, such as its walls being destroyed, its streets trampled, God making it into an uninhabited city, God causing the waters to cover it, all of the parts that refer to specific locales, such as that this "place" will become a bare rock amidst the sea where fisherman will unknowningly lay nets upon to dry...
Of course the kingdom of Tyre is implied as falling once the great city does, but Ezekiel specifically draws attention to how this kingdom will fall, how the other princes of the sea will lament over its fall saying, "O city renown, once mighty upon the sea, how you have vanished from the sea".

For the prophecy to be true the city of Tyre, the heart of the Tyrian kingdom, must be destroyed (26:4, 8-14, 19), submerged (26:19-20) and lost forever (26:21), never to be rebuilt (26:14). It must become nothing but a bare rock (26:14) used for drying fishnets, presumably unknowingly by fisherman, amidts the sea (26:5,14).

dongiovanni1976x

So is the location of Tyre known or unknown?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well now. But if I prove Tyre sank, then I don’t have to provide supporting arguments.

Perhaps it has! Perhaps it hasn’t. But what we need are not possibilities (it’s possible Tyre sank!) but probabilities. You seem to be taking continual refuge in mere possibilities here.

They do, actually! It’s going to be a difficult discussion, if you can’t see the resemblance here.

Because it seems to me self-evident that if tourist agencies knew of real Phoenician walls, they would mention them. This is indeed a difficult discussion. Why do you seem to conclude they have checked for this information, probably found it, and then not deemed to mention it?

“You toss out silly and irrelevant questions that are nothing more than transparent dodges to help you avoid obvious conclusions about the weak points of your argument.”

I think that might be a suitable rejoinder, here.

So then what was the objection, then? It seems that mentioning new discoveries would stir up the same conflict, if the subject was about Phoenician remnants. But I don’t think the conflict in Lebanon was over who was Phoenician! “… which you would be aware of, if you actually knew anything about this subject …”

Could you point out which part shows the walled city that was besieged by Neb was on the island though? This seems to state the opposite, that further attack would involve attacking the island, and without a fleet Neb could not pursue this objective.

Because fresh-water wells come from underground fresh-water springs, which won’t likely occur out in salt sea areas. Where would the fresh water spring come from?

I not only have to defend my points, I also have to defend your points.

But see the island of Hercules, this is not a tiny portion.

Well, if it’s underwater, we don’t know, so perhaps this cannot be either proven or disproven?

Regards,
Lee

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, I created a separate thread entitled, "Bible History and Lee Merrill's Island Wells" to dig deeper into the aspect of the mainland/island seige controversy. When you get a chance please check it out.
thank you,
DonG.

Sauron

But you haven't proven that Tyre sank, nor do you appear to be on the verge of doing that anytime soon. Pointing out the existence of a fault line does not help your argument, since you cannot connect the fault line to any events in the area of Tyre. Pointing out the existence of a bomb doesn't help you prove anything, if you can't prove that the bomb ever detonated.

In point of fact, your statement that the "rounding" of the corners has not occurred is only speculation. You don't know if it has occurred, or not. You would need to know what the original contours were in the first place, in order to say that the contours haven't changed. But you don't know that, lee. That's why I said perhaps it has rounded the corners, but the process isn't finished.

Secondly, you have yet to tell us how your question is relevant to the discussion. Until you do that, your what-if scenario deserves nothing more than a what-if response.

Now you're merely engaged in projection. I'm afraid it's you who hascontinually tossed out what-if scenarios, and then asked skeptics to shoot them down. If you cared about probabilities, you would have abandoned your argument long ago.

No, lee. They do not resemble Florida. There is no resemblance to see. Pretending otherwise isn't going to work.

This does not look like Florida:


Nor does this:


Putting your ears in your fingers (or your eyes) and pretending that they resemble Florida just because you isn't going to work.

Of course, if you disagree, then submit your criteria here for evaluation. List the peninsulas you have examined, how you determined their similarity, and what your sampling size was. Yes, I know -- sounds like icky, dirty work, doesn't it? :rolling:

Ah. The old lee_merrill "self evident" claim again.

1. What seems "self evident" to you is not relevant to this discussion, nor does it count as any form of evidence. You haven't demonstrated that you keep current on the state of information, so you can hardly be considered as an informed opinion or debater.

2. And as we have seen, whenever you declare something "self evident" that is merely a codeword for your way of trying to get others to accept your conclusions without having to do any work to support them. Nobody is going to take your word on whether something is self-evident or not.

3. But again, you dodge the question: how do you know what the tourist agencies are promoting, or aren't promoting? Answer: you don't know. Why? Because lee_merrill hasn't done any investigation into what tourist agencies are offering. And of course, if those walls aren't on the tour routes, there would be no reason to mention them to the traveling audience. Why mention something that the tourist won't be allowed to visit?

4. And finally, as don pointed out, tourist agencies are not an expert source on the topic. Your reliance upon them is immature.

Yes. Your intellectual dishonesty makes it so. Will you be giving it up anytime soon?

I conclude nothing at all. It was you who tried to conclude that merely because you hadn't found X, that proved that X wasn't out there. I merely point out that your assumption from silence does not prove what you claim it proves. In order to do that, all I need to do is show that there are other possibilities about X which YOU did not consider, and which YOU did not take into account.

And of course, the tourist sites might actually be mentioning these walls. Since lee_merrill is nobody's expert on Lebanese tourist sites, we really don't know what they are, or aren't, offering tourists these days. Lee has not done any surveys of such sites; all he has done is google one or two sites and drawn his self-serving conclusions.

And as usual, you would be wrong. You tried to claim that because you couldn't find something, it obviously didn't exist. That trick didn't work, because I showed several other possibilities as to how some X could exist, and still not be found by your "tourist sites".

I just told you: the answer to that question was readily available in the sources you were spoon-fed in the previous debate. Go back and read the National Geographic article - for the first time, apparently.

More proof that you did not read the sources. Will you be reading them anytime soon? I sure hope so, because I won't be re-posting the sources for you. I stopped doing that long ago.

*sigh*. This is why you get rightly branded as dishonest, lee. The island city was besieged:

the island of Tyre to which the inhabitants of Palaetyrus no doubt had fled with whatever they could carry, withdrew his forces. Before he lifted the siege

Are you saying that the island withstood a 13 year siege without any walls?

What was being sieged then? There is no evidence of any walls on the mainland city, and without walls it certainly wouldn't take 13 years to capture the suburbs. More like 13 days.

More assumptions on your part. Hawaii has wells. So does Puerto Rico. And Sicily. Where did these wells come from, Lee? would you care to try again? Hint: think about how the island is anchored.

From springs, lee. AS usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Here; a tourist site:
http://www.lebanonatlas.com/TyreBeach.htm

With marinas and other development spreading along the Lebanese coast, it was a sign of good fortune when the coastal area south of the historic city of Tyre was established a Nature Reserve in November 1998. Even though the Reserve covers only around 3.8 km2 and is cut into two segments by the Rashidiyeh Refugee camp, it encompasses a variety of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and one of the most beautiful and scenic sandy beaches in Lebanon.

Adjacent to fields, in the southern section, several springs, used since the time of the Phoenicians for irrigation and drinking water, feed 1500 l / sec* into the three striking pools of Ras Al Ain. The pools provide a freshwater habitat and the off-flow creates small areas of marshland attractive to frogs and other amphibians.

And:
http://www.atrium-media.com/roguecla...004/11/18.html

The classic example was when Alexander became the first commander to defeat a navy from land. Not having time to build and train a fleet to overcome Darius III, he looked for enemy weaknesses, settling on the need to dock every couple of days to get fresh water. Alexander garrisoned all sources of fresh water such as rivers and wells -- or poisoned those he couldn't or didn't want to control.

The remaining obstacle was Tyre, which had unlimited fresh water from an aquifer and was selling fresh water to Darius. It was also an impregnable island that had survived being besieged for 13 years in one instance.


Of course, Berrigan also mentioned that the Tyrians had their own fresh water supply. But as usual, you don't even read your own sources.

Well, you haven't defended your points at all. And don't flatter yourself, lee: you're nowhere near up to the intellectual task of defending mine.

noah

Lee you're at it again. You're playing this little game where we do the research and you act as though you merely have to say "what if" or "yeah but". You are going to have to do some research Lee. You have no proof that islands don't draw fresh water from wells. If you do then show it to us. I just showed you that islands do draw their drinking water from wells. Didn't you read my post? I just gave you seven examples of islands that are in the ocean that draw their water from wells. We have fresh water wells right here on the island I live on never mind the other islands which I gave you as examples. It was in my post Lee. You can't see that Lee? How do I get you to read my post Lee? Should I use larger print?
If you don't believe these islands have fresh water wells then prove it Lee. But I can tell you that you will not be able to prove it because wells supply many islands with drinking water.
Here's a few more islands that draw drinking water from wells:

Bimini

The United Nations Environment Programme says "Groundwater is the most common source of freshwater on small islands" and that wells are the best way to get to it.

Andros Island, Bahamas gets it water from wells or a "well field".

Kiribati gets fresh water from drinking wells.

The islands in Indonesia got their drinking water from wells before the Tsunami spoiled most of them.

And, as I said before Lee, the island I'm on gets fresh drinking water from wells.

Unintelligible Lee. What are you trying to say here? You do have to defend your points. We all know that. You can start by proving that islands don't draw drinking water from wells.

Lee if you can't defend your points why would I expect you to defend my points. I can do that myself Lee. Just read my post here and before to see that.

Lee the island of Hercules was not on the island of Tyre. The two islands are not and were not physically connected. You know that Lee. So why say it?
If they are or were connected then prove it.

I'll ask again Lee. Do you have any proof, any geological or geomorphic proof that Tyre sank?

Please tell me how no historian or geologist or anyone else ever noted that the island of Tyre sank?

Where is your evidence that Tyre sank Lee? I mean evidence Lee. Not guesses and "what ifs" and questions you should answer yourself.

It really doesn't matter whether a part of the island sank Lee. It would still mean that Tyre was above water.
If you're going to argue that a part of Tyre sank then where's your proof?



Now you're using your argument as your conclusion. You've skipped right past the part where you have to prove the island sank. Where is your proof that the island sank Lee? You've been "debating" this topic for months now and you still haven't given any proof that Tyre sank.

Lee if you're going to act all hurt that Sauron is "sneering" at you then you are going to have to realize that your actions and inactions have consequences. Proper debate requires that both sides acknowledge each sides arguments and responds to each argument the other side makes and does so by doing more than endlessly guessing at irrelevant possibilities.
Second, in a debate you are expected to provide proof of your assertion(s).
Again you haven't done this either. You seem to believe all you have to do is keep wondering out loud about vague and easily disprovable "what ifs". That's not debate. You've been at this long enough to know that every time you get into a thread you are expected to supprot your assertions with concrete evidence and not just sit there and put out uninformed quesses instead of real arguments and proof of them.

So if you want to avoid Sauron and others "sneering" at you then play by the rules.
You have been at this to long to have no idea why people don't treat you civilly.

Points Lee Merrill has yet to prove:

- That the island of Tyre sank

- That Tyre was ever made a bare rock

- That islands don't draw fresh drinking water from wells

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Yes, it has, and you know it. I have already pointed out to you that Tyre did indeed become a fully independent nation (gaining independence from the Seleucids) after Alexander.
Again, why do you post falsehoods that can be so easily checked?

You HAVE posted about instances of "you", but you have NOT done as I requested.

What you DID say about instances of "you" has been refuted. But if you HAD done as I requested, then your arbitrary and unjustifiable subject-switch from "Tyre" to "Ushu" in the middle of Ezekiel 26:8 would have been more readily apparent.

dongiovanni1976x

Could you please address this issue Bfniii, your entire argument hinges upon this arbitrary subject switch. If your position is SO clear then we all must be idiots for not understanding it. I will play the idiot if you will so indulge me and present, explain and justify your postion by doing as Jack has requested.
Thank you,
DonG.

noah

When is bfnii going to prove two things:

1) That Tyre sank

2) That Tyre was ever made a bare rock?

And by prove bfnii, I mean using the proper references and sources. I suggest you start with a geological study or some ancient historian or other commentator who can confirm your claim that Tyre sank.
If Tyre sank someone in the area would have noticed don't you think?

If Tyre sank there would be some geological and/or geomorphic evidence as there always is when such major cataclysms occur, for example we know that earthquakes have a happened in various places because the earth itself leaves all kinds of evidence that an earthquake happened.

The same is true for Tyre. If Tyre sank beneath the waves there will be lots of evidence of it.

lee_merrill

No, actually, I missed that, though I came in late to this thread.

Good point, I was wrong about that.

Well, a claim was made, I said I find it implausible, and thus it is a good idea to demonstrate your claim. That is how we do such discussions! Now if I make a claim, then is it incumbent on you to try and prove it? Well, no, you can say "Let's see the evidence," and then the evidence should be forthcoming.

Well, it seems they were, though. But maybe I should ask you to prove that they weren't? Why are you asking me to do all your work for you here?

No, I don't, I only have evidence, and you have evidence, neither side has proof.

Gleason Archer said this happened, actually.

Well, see my response to Don on this very question! Your turn to check prior posts!

Actually, not sneering is one of the rules, people do get banned for continued "inflammatory, insulting comments" (Ameleq's phrase, I believe). And I'm not upset, only it does get wearisome to plow through page after page of insults between every other comment. It's not fun, Sauron has made my ignore list twice, and I'm about to stop reading his posts, again.

I also posted in response to Sauron, showing that he is doing the very things he accuses me of. So you all should jeer and sneer at him? Fair is fair...

Regards,
Lee