Sauron

Yes I have. I see nothing unusual about the shape of the island. It looks like any old island.

We are disputing this because you made claims that are untrue and unproven, and for some strange reason you think I'm going to accept them without question. Once again:

1. Tyre is not oddly shaped. If you think it is, then demonstrate that claim, using other islands as some kind of normative reference group, and don't forget to provide a measurement scale for "oddly shaped".

2. Difficult to follow with a wall? My, what an interesting claim. Let's see the proof for it. So far, there is no evidence that the shape of Tyre presents any difficulties whatsoever with building a wall.

No problem. They are equated. Ezekiel specifically names Nebuchadnezzar doing all this destruction.

But you offered no responses that stood up under scrutiny. One by one they were picked apart, leaving my original scenarios standing strong, without any response from you. That is why I am forced to ask you again: when did you plan to respond to the four scenarios I presented?

1. Yes you could - but you would be lying, if you said that.

2. More to the point: you've already "proceeded similarly", when you dishonestly claimed above that you responded to the scenarios I presented. You did *not*, in fact, respond to them.

Unless one counts what-if scenarios -- that don't hold water when deconstructed -- as some kind of "response". Apparently you count broken responses as being valid ones. I don't.

Smart move. I suppose the best way to avoid checkmate is to "accidentally" turn over the chessboard or just refuse to play any longer. Maybe then no one will notice that you were losing badly. :thumbs:

*Sigh*. More wiggling, trying to forestall the inevitable?

The nominal submission that Jidejian mentions was from the island city, because that is where the rulers were located at. Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't have sought any submission from the mainland city because:

1.he conquered and destroyed that part of Tyre - no submission needed, when you can fully conquer;

2. there was only one city of Tyre, and it was ruled from the island - the only place that *could* submit

The submission was a consolation prize, a token event. It made up for the fact the couldn't capture the island city. It allowed Nebuchadnezzar to satisfy the political requirements and keep his reign intact, and permitted him to go home with some amount of his pride satisfied. But it allowed Tyre to continue as a city, making lots of money - all of which is precisely what I said earlier.

Why are you trying to pretend that I was talking about the mainland city?

1. Here is my original claim:
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland suburbs, but couldn't take the prize city on the island. A 13-year siege set in, that was only terminated when Tyre agreed to some nominal show of surrender, and Nebuchadnezzar agreed to pretty much leave them alone, except for some tribute payments. Tyre went right on being the Wall Street of the ancient near east, and Nebuchadnezzar went home empty-handed.

2. You tried to refute that claim by saying:
Well, from "The Sea Traders," by Time-Life books, page 91, we read "Nebuchadnezzar ... in 572 B.C. finally succeeded in winning the second of the three great sieges lost by Tyre (this one lasted 13 years)." On page 100, we read of "the subjugation of the citizens of Tyre by the Babylonians, which indeed came to pass in 572 B.C. That assault by Babylon represents a watershed in Phoenician history. Tyre had a ghastly time at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar II and recovered slowly from the terrible 13-year siege he laid down."

3. The quotations from Jidejian and Britannica that I provided refute the TIME-Life statement.

4. My position has always maintained the clear distinction between the fate of the mainland and the fate of the island. I stated that clearly, in the very first sentence of my comment above:

Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland suburbs, but couldn't take the prize city on the island.

Now you're pretending to misunderstand my claim - why? Because you think that will buy you some time or credibility? It didn't work.

1. It is more than enough time. Your personal ignorance of the scientific techniques being used is here not a rebuttal to the statement.

2. The fact that you "aren't sure" carries no weight here. What lee merrill finds convincing (or not) is besides the point. You have no expertise in any of the subject areas in this discussion, and your intellectual integrity is highly questionable.

3. So if you have some science-based objection, then by all means bring it forth. But don't expect anyone to second-guess the science here merely because "you're not sure".

1. The particular paragraph that you are misreading is discussing the colonization of Malta.

2. You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the article. It is discussing Phoenician DNA from the Levant - as opposed to the other areas where Phoenician DNA is found - such as North Africa, or Malta. But in the Levant, the specific areas of Phoenician settlement were Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, etc. If you had a shred of honest intellectual interest in this, you would have seen the pop-up map of Phoenicia available at the National Geographic website, as it clearly points out the Phoenician settlements.

But you're not actually interested in the topic. Games, games, and more games....

Sauron

Why, thank you. :thumbs:

Yes. Most of the participants reached this same conclusion weeks ago. I am only continuing to respond because the lurking audience needs to see how dishonest Christian bible literalists are when practicing their apologetics.

The anti-prophecy posters won this debate back around page 2 of the thread. Since then, my audience has been the lurkers, not lee.

It's unlikely that lee is a Christian.

It's far more likely that this is just a game for him. He's shown no personal inititiative or desire to educate himself on the topic, insisting that everyone spoon-feed him the missing info to fill in the large gaps of his knowledge.

I suspect that if this were a forum about motorcycles, cooking or any other topic, he'd be doing the same thing: making baseless claims and then expecting other people to spend energy to refute him.

lee_merrill

Hi Scotter,

It takes two to discuss, though...

Yes...

I suppose if I stopped responding, that would be reason for people to call on me to be ashamed as well! Like the man under arrest, when whatever he does will be used against him...

I have to get up early, and it's not early in the evening, so I will have to wait for any further comments until tomorrow..

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Yes. 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.

Not me. Fat chance.

Great example you're setting. Wonder if your Saviour would be as intellectually dishonest as you've been.

Assuming, of course, that I believed your claim to be a Christian -- which I don't.

Don't flatter yourself. You are not the victim of circumstances. You're merely an instigator, looking for ways to protract a discussion that you have zero true interest in.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, for the walls and harbor, but not here! "Bring you down to the people" probably is referring to bringing people down, to where people are.

Yes, and I'm holding that this applies to the people, since they would not think a person would actually try seeking cities in Sheol! Even if they thought a city could descend there, why would they then set out to seek it?

I recommend modern translations, such as the ESV and NASB, which emphasize accuracy, because much progress has been made in understanding these languages, since the time of the king who reigned in England, four centuries ago.

We must not have the same book! Without the loose sand, it's distinctly an "L" shape, which is unusual.

This, however ... assumes they are equated! Naming Neb and many nations does not make many nations mean only Neb.

Jeremiah 27:7 All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him.

How could all nations serve Babylon, if Babylon meant "many nations"? Then we have many nations rule all nations. And who subjugated Babylon? The Medes and Persians, and maybe others, thus "many nations" here means many distinct nations, not one group of people from various nations.

"I (and others) easily shot them down" is not scrutiny, though, nor is it a rebuttal, it is simply a claim, and I can say my response easily shot yours down, and that is not a scrutiny of what you said, either.

Here again is my response:

Why would they only realize they had enough material, after they brought it all the way down the causeway? Surely they would realize this before that point.

"[Alex] did it all under pressure of a military deadline; and while ... trying to fend off attacks from Tyrians"

Yes, he should stop minding the arrows, and throw rocks into the sea? He was in a hurry, so he should take a detour to do this? It is less probable, not more probable here.

"Alex ravaged the city as punishment for their resistance."

Nina called them ruins, not rubble, making it more probable, again, that these were not put there by Alex, because they are not just scattered stones.

And my last statement about ruins not being rubble is this:

"It says there is rubble there, and they do not assign one of these points on the scale to the mounds."

To which "Don't be deliberately dense" is not a refutation...

Yes, that is my view here, I agree with all of this.

Until Renan saw it being "ruins built out of ruins"...

Well, I actually missed that, my mistake. Maybe I'm not perfect? Could be...

Well, I meant the resolution as meaning that the time interval of the arrival of these people should be much narrower! Some time in the last 2,000 years could be lots of candidates....

But the Levant is not just those cities, it is the whole region, that is what I meant. And it is not discussing Phoenician DNA, it is instead, discussing DNA from people from the Levant, which points to the Phoenicians. You've got this pointing the other way! Maybe we both are not perfect?

Regards,
Lee

martini

how did Yahweh make the people "go down with those who go down to the pit"? it has already been shown that there were survivors of Tyre. how could this apply to people and not the city?
my emphasis. please make a note that you said this.
that is the whole point of the threat. Yahweh would destroy the city so badly that no one would ever be able to find it again, even if they looked for it. it seems a pretty clear and continuous thought throughout this "prophecy". again, i see no reason to use people here and, moreover, "you will never be found again" furthers the idea that this is referring to the city. people survived the destruction so this cannot refer to them and still be a successful prophecy. now do you see why?
that is fine. from the ESV:

19 “For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set beauty in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord God.�
from here
when Yahweh makes Tyre laid waste like uninhabited cities
and
when Yahweh brings the deep up over Tyre and the great waters cover Tyre
then
Yahweh will make Tyre go down with those who go down to the pit

at not point is there a change of subject. at no point does Yahweh make this a prophecy specifically for the people of Tyre. i am wondering what reason prevents you from following this train of thought.

another important thing to note in this verse is that Yahweh clearly states that there are already "ruins of old" there. now wouldn't that indicate the presence of other cities "ruined" there? were you not the one who claimed that ruins indicate the remains of a city?

Sauron

1. No, we have the same book. You're just trying to make the author say things that she never intended.

2. Besides, how do you justify subtracting the loose sand when considering what constitutes the island? It's part of the island as well. If you subtract out the loose sand, then why not subtract out Alexander's (artificial) causeway as well? Now you have a different shaped island. Face it: your criteria is vague and you're making it up as you go.

3. Tyre is not "distinctly an L shape." It looks more like a pseudopod to me. Not like an "L" at all. Too bad you don't have some kind of normative scale and yardstick for "unusual". :rolling:

4. But if you insist on it being an "L" shape, fine. Now prove that "L" shaped islands are unusual - that was your claim, after all. Whether "L" or pseudopod, the problem remains. You still need to prove your earlier allegation that the shape is unusual. Point-blank fact is that Tyre is not oddly shaped. If you think it is, then demonstrate that claim, using other islands as some kind of normative reference group, and don't forget to provide a measurement scale for "oddly shaped".

5. Then when you're done, you need to demonstrate that it would be "hard to follow the shape of the island with a wall" - which was the other half of your unsupported assertion.

Finally -- you act as if the Jidejian book was the first time that we ever knew what the shape of the island was. But this thread is *littered* with maps and photos of the island, that have clearly shown the shape of the island for over two months. What does Jidejian have to do with the shape? Jidejian doesn't support your case, and referring to her book to just get a view of the island is a diversion. You've had the ability to view the island for months.

But no assumption is necessary. Ezekiel *does* equate them. Ezekiel specifically names Nebuchadnezzar doing all this destruction. Period, end of argument. As I already explained, complete with evidence and supporting documentation.

1. I did not say that Babylon meant "many nations". I said that Ezekiel equated "many nations" with Nebuchadnezzar and his armies, in relation to the attack on Tyre.

2. We've been through your little Jeremiah tap-dance before. It didn't work last time; why try it again?

Repeat: I did not say that Jeremiah equated the two terms. I said that Ezekiel did. Ezekiel does not refer to it by that method. And Ezekiel is what we are talking about. Jeremiah is not a reference for what Ezekiel is thinking or intended to say. ach bible writer had a particular style. It was not Ezekiel's style to refer to the "nation of Babylon." Moreover, as noah points out, Jeremiah actually works against you by naming Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon as "many nations" and "tribes of the north." Jeremiah is not your escape hatch here; Jeremiah is the nail in the coffin for your claim.

No, it's an honest reporting of historical events.

And the "scrutiny" already occurred -- you tossed out your what-if scenarios, we scrutinized them, and the result was a train wreck for you. In short, you offered no responses that stood up under the scrutiny you are talking about.

BTW - you lied when you said "Well, I responded to all five points" - you did not. Unless you count unsupported what-if scenario as a response. I do not count it as such.

Except that you would be lying - again - if you said that. Especially since your responses amounted to nothing more than what-if scenarios that were quickly gutted and hung out to dry.

But apparently, dear readers, lee is going to try and muster up one last attempt to save dignity and repeat his previous what-if responses. So I guess I'll have to re-post the rebuttals that knocked down his responses. Below please note that his what-if scenario is in black font. My response that knocked down the what-if scenario follows right after him, in blue font. I like to use blue, to emphasize (1) that he's not reading what people post; and (2) that he frequently ignores the fact that his arguments have already been defeated, and tries to use them again anyhow. :rolling:

So without further ado, let's see the first one.

A response which was gutted when I punched holes in it thusly:

Perhaps because:

* civil engineering wasn't an exact science in 330 BC.;
* in the haste of battle they might not measure as accurately as they would otherwise;
* they might have decided to cut corners and not widen the causeway sa originally planned, in order to preserve a military advantage or attack under a finite window of opportunity that was quickly closing;
* etc.

The bottom line here, lee, is you asked for a rationale why the material would be tossed away. I provided several such rationales - in spite of the fact that anyone with a nickel's worth of honesty could have easily thought of several reasons.

Now you need to explain why you insist this is not possible.

So as I said: you haven't offered a response that stood up to "scrutiny." Now, let's review your next attempt at intellectual denial:

Which was shot down thusly, with THREE different responses:


1. Wrong. A military commander under fire is going to be rushed and sloppy putting the causeway together. And he isn't going to worry if some of the materials get tossed or discarded during the construction process.
[...]
Alexander tossing rocks into the water isn't gonig to impair the military readiness of the causeway, nor is it "sloppy" as long as the rocks don't block the military units. Which, by tossing them into the water, kinda ensures that they aren't going to be obstacles.
[...]
Maybe he had too much material, and once he finished the causeway he hastily chucked the surplus into the water to clear the causeway for his troops.

Next handwave, please.

Which was shot down as follows:


Rubble is a kind of ruins.
[...]
And in addition to this one particular example, I also pointed out Jidejian is counting the fact that the Egyptian port is part of the "ruins" of Tyre. Much of the Egyptian port is either underwater, or mired in muck or sand.

Which I followed up with a link showing you not only that rubble are a kind of ruins, but a second link showing that undersea Phoenician wrecks are referred to as "ruins".

I also provided the following additional reasons why the Alexander scenario is very plausible:

1. As a lesson to other cities who might try to oppose him.
2. To prevent (or slow down) any attempts to rebuild the city so that it posed a threat in the future.

If you had spent 15 seconds thinking about that comment, you might have realized the obvious answers to it and not embarrassed yourself.

On to your next bit of dishonesty....

Nice try. But I refuted your statement with a lot more than just the comment "don't be dense." I pointed out that the article DOES indicate that they assign such a number to the mounds.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...06#post2478606

Then why are you trying to maintain that there were two cities here instead of one?

What does Renan have to do with your disagreement about the state of Tyre after Nebuchadnezzar? Nebuchadnezzar sieged Tyre in 585 BCE. Renan saw Tyre in 1830, twenty-three centuries later. You disagreed with my statement about the nominal submission and the economic resurgence post-Nebuchadnezzar. Bringing up Renan only makes it look like you're trying to distract the thread and avoid the point.

Oh, that's right -- you probably want to do that, don't you?

Sloppy and/or dishonest is more probable. I've been excruciatingly clear about the claim for pages and pages now. To pretend at this late date that you didn't understand my position on this matter; well, it defies credibility.

You're being sloppy and/or dishonest again. The item they are testing for is a Phoenician marker on the DNA. So it could *not* be lots of candidates, contrary to your claim.

I know what you meant. But it doesn't help you any. The research is focused on finding modern descendants of the Phoenician cities within the Levant - not the other cities that existed there.

No, you're just wrong again. The National Geographic article *is* discussing Phoenician DNA markers. Next time you might try reading up on this process, before attempting to discuss it. Go read something on mutation time-clocks and the Cohen modal haplotype.

Sauron

Ah. So you "recommend" modern translations. Well, great. We're all relieved to know what bible translations that lee merrill recommends. But how did you come to these (ahem) recommendations, lee? Based upon what -- your extensive experience in bible exegesis? Your experience with studying manuscripts? Were you studying bible at night class, while finishing your education in ancient warfare, ancient civil engineering, geology, and Iron Age maritime navigation?

I ask this because -- you see, there is a tiny little problem here. Neither the ESV nor the NASB support your claim about verse 20. On the contrary, they both say "not inhabited":

Hmm. Are you telling a lie, lee?

In fact, I can't find any version that supports your creative and convenient re-wording of verse 20. Why is that, lee?
Hm. The translations say "not inhabited" everywhere. Except for the NIV - which isn't really a translation - and even it says essentially the same thing as "not inhabited" by declaring that Tyre wouldn't take its place "in the land of the living."

So how did this happen, Lee? You made claims about the ESV and NASB which apparently aren't true. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Lee - are you making stuff up again as you go? :rolling:

Sven

Sauron (or anyone else who has an idea), what do you think about this solution for the prophecy?

Her argument is basically that the verse 7-11 use "he" and thus mean Nebuchadnezzar, whereas the following verses use "they" and thus refer to the "many nations", that is Alexander and other conquerors of Tyre.

I know that you already put to rest the claim that "many nations" are not Nebuchadnezzar's army, but something else bothers me with this "argument": I vaguely recollect that Hebrew isn't straightforward with respect to singular and plural. Do I misremember something, or is the "argument" above simply crap because the original Hebrew simply did not make the distinction between "he" and "they"?

Sauron

That's the same argument other fundies have made. Already discussed and refuted here.

Correct. Many nations *is* Nebuchadnezzar's army. See the above link for reasons why. Also see the following, from my document on Tyre:

The original Hebrew makes the same distinction that we make. The argument you are citing is the same one Josh McDowell uses - and it's broken there as well.

From my document on Tyre:

Please note that there are *other* arguments against the apologetic defense of "use the original Hebrew" besides this one.