FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Tyre Prophecy Revisited
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 63 of 70 « First 13536162 63 6465 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-30-2008, 11:32 AM   #621
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darklighter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Historical fact. Nebby attack mainland tyre 13 years. Check Josephus.
Nebby DID NOT, nor did Josephus say he did, attack the mainland for 13 years. B
Apparently Nebby did attack Tyre and was able to call a truce.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:34 AM   #622
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

So if your argument is the almighty Nebby conquered Tyre what did Alexander the Great conquer? :wave:
God, it's hard for you to think logically. A land siege of thirteen years? Hopefully you can see that it so improbable that even you can't keep a straight face advocating such a thing. How many historically established land sieges in antiquity can you find that lasted 13 years?? Where did the food and water supplies come from??

Tyre was not a military power. It didn't fight battles. It's defense was its location on the island. It depended on its ships especially in times of siege. That's how come the siege lasted for 13 years. Tyre could still get some supplies from the Mediterranean.
spin
So Nebby was able to siege an island for 13 years?
arnoldo is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:37 AM   #623
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

So your argument is that Nebby didn't destroy Tyre, right?
You got it.


spin
So your argument now is that Nebby and the King of Tyre declared a truce, right?
arnoldo is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:44 AM   #624
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
The obvious conclusion is that after 13 years of siege, the Tyrians, unable to continue, came to an agreement with Babylon and functionally surrendered. (The island itself was never directly attacked by Nebuchadnezzar. He merely maintained forces to prevent Tyre from getting any resources from Babylonian held territories.) The Babylonian then removed the position of king and installed a member of the royal line as an administrator.


spin
Wrong, Nebby destroyed the city.
No, he didn't. He only destroyed the mainland.

Quote:
Alexander the Great then fulfilled prophecy by throwing the city into the sea to create a landbridge.
Also wrong, since the prophecy specified Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city. Prophecy fails again! :rolling:
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:46 AM   #625
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
God, it's hard for you to think logically. A land siege of thirteen years? Hopefully you can see that it so improbable that even you can't keep a straight face advocating such a thing. How many historically established land sieges in antiquity can you find that lasted 13 years?? Where did the food and water supplies come from??

Tyre was not a military power. It didn't fight battles. It's defense was its location on the island. It depended on its ships especially in times of siege. That's how come the siege lasted for 13 years. Tyre could still get some supplies from the Mediterranean.
spin
So Nebby was able to siege an island for 13 years?
Yep.

Can you make up your mind which horse you plan to ride, though?

You started out by saying that Nebuchadnezzar didn't attack the island.

Then this morning you tried to say he destroyed the city - hard to do, if he didn't attack the island, which is where the city was.

Now you seem to be saying the Nebuchadnezzar vs. Tyre did result in a truce.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:48 AM   #626
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Message to arnoldo: When was the Tyre prophecy written?
Obviously around the same time that zeke wrote that nebby was going to destroy Jerusalem.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:51 AM   #627
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Message to arnoldo: When was the Tyre prophecy written?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Obviously around the same time that zeke wrote that Nebby was going to destroy Jerusalem.
Why is it obvious?

Is it reasonably possible that the prophecy was revised?

Could God have made the prophecy indisputable if he had wanted to?

What benefits has God or anyone else derived from his refusal to make indisputable predictions? None. Would it have been much more helpful if God had always made indisuptable predictions? Yes.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:54 AM   #628
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default
Message to arnoldo: Please read my post #53 in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235501 at this forum and reply to it. It provides credible evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:55 AM   #629
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Message to arnoldo: When was the Tyre prophecy written?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Obviously around the same time that zeke wrote that Nebby was going to destroy Jerusalem.
Why is it obvious?

Is it reasonably possible that the prophecy was revised?
Do you have proof of a before and after revised document of Ezekiel. No. The Argument of Silence is deafening.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:59 AM   #630
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
The obvious conclusion is that after 13 years of siege, the Tyrians, unable to continue, came to an agreement with Babylon and functionally surrendered. (The island itself was never directly attacked by Nebuchadnezzar. He merely maintained forces to prevent Tyre from getting any resources from Babylonian held territories.) The Babylonian then removed the position of king and installed a member of the royal line as an administrator.
Wrong, Nebby destroyed the city. Alexander the Great then fulfilled prophecy by throwing the city into the sea to create a landbridge. Are you now going to argue that Alexander the Great never created a landbridge?
If you don't understand what you are responding to it's a good idea not to respond, so that you don't look totally silly.

Perhaps this is merely a case of forgetfulness on your part. (You should have noticed that I have always understood that Alexander built a mole out to Tyre.)

Now tell us what are your primary sources for where Alexander got his stone to build the mole?


spin
spin is offline  
 
Page 63 of 70 « First 13536162 63 6465 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.