lee_merrill

Long non-post alert! I'll have to continue this on Saturday...


Wikipedia says...

"Hittites or (more recently) Hethites is also the common English name of a Biblical people (חתי or HTY in the consonant-only Hebrew script), which are also called Children of Heth (ב×*×™-חת, BNY HT). These people are mentioned several times in the Old Testament, from the time of the Patriarchs up to Ezra's return from Babylonian captivity; see Hittites in the Bible. The archaeologists who discovered the Anatolian Hittites in the 19th century initially believed the two peoples to be the same, but this identification is still disputed."

And possibly the skeptics pointed out the absence of evidence for the Hittites, before this discovery?

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Possibly? You've got some strange standards, that's for sure. Possibly pigs might fly, so that's sufficient proof?

Why not offer real proof, real evidence, rather than your conjecture, which is apparently based off of an internet encyclopdia?

Amaleq13

It is possible but that article doesn't make or even imply that they have. It indicates that there is dispute about whether the Anatolian Hittites are the Hittites from the Bible. There is nothing suggesting a dispute about whether Hittites existed.

spin

Let's not get sidetracked.

The evidence is simple.

Ezekiel 26 explains that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre, the result of which was that God would "make you (Tyre) a bare rock... You shall never be rebuilt again."

Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer Tyre. He didn't make it a bare rock. And Tyre has been rebuilt several times.

As has been pointed out, Tyre was "in the midst of the sea" (Eze 26:5), was "in the heart of the seas" (Eze 27:25), and sits "in the heart of the seas", ie Tyre was an island. In fact if you read Josephus A.J. 8.5.3 you'll find that Hiram is attributed to have joined two islands together by filling in the area between the two heights. The original Phoenician cities were concerned about protected location so they were built on islands where possible, such as Tyre and Arad (others on difficult peninsulas). Shalmaneser III received tribute from Tyre via ship. It is inevitable that Tyre was the island.

That Nebuchanezzar didn't destroy the island of Tyre should be obvious from the quotation from Josephus found in my message #66 of this thread. Josephus lists the leaders of Tyre from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till Cyrus, so we have an unbroken inhabitation of the place after Nebuchadnezzar. As I said, Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer Tyre. He didn't make it a bare rock. And Tyre has been rebuilt several times. Yet, this is the claim in Ezekiel 26.


spin

Sven

Peter Kirby discusses the "Hittites-skeptics myth" in his blog ( 2005-02-10) extensively. His conclusion:

It turns out that even the most negative of the criticisms in the nineteenth century was not that the Hittites had no existence but, rather, that the Hittites weren't as "significant" as the Bible indicates.

Thus, there is a legend here. It is the legend about "the liberal critics," those opponents of the Bible whose hammers fall in futility against the anvil of the Bible. When it comes to the nineteenth century opinion of critics who denied the existence of the Hittites, it is a legend that has developed because of its congeniality to apologetic concerns.

Apart from this, this thread (and the Tyre prophecy) perfectly demonstrates why it's futile to discuss with inerrantists. Just incredible. :down:

Sauron

*sigh*

1. Wikipedia is not a reference for this claim - or any claim. Do you know what Wikipedia is, Lee? It's an internet encyclopedia where ANYONE can submit whatever article they want to. You don't have to be an expert in any field; it isn't peer-reviewed by specialists. Two or three other posters review the article, and if they like what you've written, then it gets added to Wikipedia. Do you know what a blog is? Wikipedia is just a group blog with a fancy name attached to it. It is not an encyclopedia, in spite of its name - and there is no quality check on it.

2. The Hittites of Anatolia are NOT the same as the Hittites of the Bible. The Hittites of the Bible (early period, anyhow) are a local tribe. The Hittites of Anatolia were a mighty empire.

lee_merrill

Well, it seems to be pretty well-known that the first discovery of the Hittites in archaeology happened in the 19th century.

See also here, for instance, and every other mention of this I have read.

So we have a cautionary tale here for those who seek to prove points by silence in the archeological record...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Once again, so what? This shows nothing. You haven't even shown that anyone doubted they existed at all, just that you said it was possible.

So, show some proof, please.

Then go back and answer the other posts instead of trying to change the topic and avoid them. Maybe this should be a cuationary tale for those who seek to prove points by ignoring evidence?

Sauron

So what?

1. That wasn't your claim, remember? You claimed that skeptics doubted their existence.

2. Those Hittites are not the same as the Hittites that lived in Palestine anyhow.

Again, so what?

That link merely describes the Hittite empire in brief. It does not support your claim that skeptics doubted their existence. And you still don't seem to realize that there are two groups of Hittites here. From The Oxford Companion to the Bible,:



Different people.
Different location.
Different language.
Even different timeframe.

Do you understand yet?

Which is probably a total of two references, right?

Lee, the fact is that there are two different groups of Hittites - and skeptics never doubted the existence of *either* group. As Peter Kirby demonstrated, the only thing that skeptics ever said was that the Hittites were not as important as the bible text made them out to be. That is not the same as doubting whether or not they even existed.

Well, considering that:

1. you haven't proven skeptics ever doubted the existence of Hittites; and
2. you have even confused two different groups of people;

I'd say this is more of a cautionary tale for amateurs who try to prove biblical accuracy, but have only a surface knowledge of archaeology.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

That isn't the Bible's way of referring to Babylon, though! It's the "nation" of Babylon.

Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just…

Then Abraham will be the only person to direct his children in this way?

"Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by his servants the prophets."

This is three different groups though! Chaldeans were the Babylonians, and these other bands almost certainly were not associated with the Babylonian army, which actually is further evidence that "many nations" does not mean just Babylon!

Or maybe this translation is correct:

Jeremiah 25:9 "I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon…"

Implying Neb was one of these groups.

Yes, that is your conclusion! We are discussing the reasons…

Aren't ruins in a silted-up harbor evidence? I can't make a mathematical proof, though.

Not if the walls went to the edge of the sea!

Well, that needs to be demonstrated, where are the Phoenician ruins?

Well, that is evidence, now I wonder what the basis for this claim might be? Since we are insisting on reasons for every claim! I don't mind…

And one Phoenician cemetery. And that's evidence in the opposite direction.

Alex drew the map? This really is very unconvincing.

Silted up means it was underwater, though!

Herod's port in this area seems to have sunk too!

"As for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean, in the same subsidence that submerged the port of Caesarea that Herod had built up with such expense and care. All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia B.C., since they pose such a threat to navigation." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

I agree! And then the references to "they" might refer to more than the one referred to by "he"?

Then "many nations" cannot possibly mean many independent nations? This is impossible?

And how about the Biblical usage, such as in Jer. 25:12 and other places, that indicates that Babylon was referred to as a single nation?

He was giving a succession of kings though, not a history of Neb.

But both the mainland and the island had walls and towers!

Can you prove this, though? Now that we are … demanding evidence for every claim! And does the prophecy refer to only the island not being rebuilt?

We know the Romans cleared away these rocks? We know an ancient port fell out of use? This is documented and proven? All of these events can't actually be true, about these rocks! And why would Alex throw rocks from the island into the sea?

Herod's port went up in smoke?

I can't bring any eyewitnesses! Do you have eyewitnesses to your claims, though? I did quote a reference for this, why would Josh McDowell make this up? That would endanger his whole career.

Then those soldiers would be out in the streets? What good is a chariot in house-to-house warfare?

Because there is a causeway, that is a good reason to use a chariot on it?!

How can you image buildings underground with sound waves, though? No, an MRI won't fill the bill. I think this can't be done, soundings must mean digging down.

Why would they need to find them, if they knew where they were, though?

They only search for oil where they know it's actually there?

Why not, though? This is not amphorae.

So secondary literature can only be books by the same exact author? I don't think that is what scholar-folks do, though! You can examine usage by contemporaries to determine usage in a book, that is what dictionaries do when they provide sample quotes for words.

I was just kidding! I was just having some fun. You guys are too serious, in my (possibly) humble opinion.

But why are anonymous "rough notes" more authoritative than a published encyclopedia? Is it possible that some of these sources are considered more reliable than others?

References for this person's claim, please? Why must we just believe what you read here? Now that we are insisting on proof for every claim!

Well, this is one of the interpretations being discussed. Saying your view is true isn't proof that it is, though!

Thank you for the reference, I'm glad you weren't guessing. Now "The town's 30,000 residents were massacred or sold into slavery" must mean the people, and all of them, and thus the first statement must mean the buildings, and not the people.

They did break through walls in those days, though, metal implements might be useful.

If engines were readied on the mole and on horse-transports, that seems to me to imply that the engines on the mole were not the horse-transports! i.e. they weren't pulled by horses.

My apology for the sarcasm. May I request that you refrain from this as well?

Yes, in a victory parade. I agree! I disagree with people saying horses and chariots are used in attacking an island fortress, inside or outside of it.

How does a causeway prevent me from saying it wouldn't be useful to use horses on it, though?

Well, that is not the point of the book, actually! And an archaeologist couldn't be in a Biblical Studies department?

All around all those ins and outs? There aren't just two projections, it's very convoluted. And he may be quoting Arrian! But let's quote from the web page you mentioned: "Deep water around walls meant that attack must come from ships and at a distance, that scaling ladders could not be set against the walls, an that any approach by foot was out of the question" (Curtius). Which does imply that the walls went to the edge of the sea.

Well, no, you are now supposed to tell me a reason why they would do this!

Well, we need some confirmation of this, perhaps?

Yes, it could, the question is which interpretation is most probable here.

Why would this cause a tourist site to be reluctant to mention Phoenician ruins there, though? They aren't reluctant to mention breakwaters and a cemetery, actually.

What evidence will there always be that a building was removed, though?

I agree, if you mean the island!

I agree again, if you mean the mainland.

And that is what is being discussed here…

Regards,
Lee