Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-26-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And note: Before the islands were joined, and the island enlarged. This place was less then 40 acres. Without a sizeable civilian population and army.

Doh! It was a trading, not a military, center. Wrong scenario, sugarhitman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

If the mainland was a seperate kingdom from the island, how can a weak island like pre-Hiram island Tyre conquer the mainland city?

Where does anyone say that Tyre conquered it???

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Spin tries to seperate the two by using the America vs Vietnam analogy. Vietnam and America is seperated by thousands of miles, and are not even the same peoples.

You were making assumptions merely because Tyre abandoned Ushu. I'm happy that you see that there is more involved. Perhaps now you'll stop the unfounded assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Palae-Tyre and Island Tyre was seperated by only 3.5 miles...

And only 800 years. If you'd said Ushu, then you'd be ok, but you are trying to argue incompatible references. And the fact that they were separated by a relatively short distance is irrelevant. You realize that leaving a place doesn't mean that you were necessarily from that place, meaning you have no argument here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

...and guess what they are the same peoples....Phoenecians!

Your guess is only a guess. It might be safer to say that they were both Canaanite peoples. You don't really know anything about the people of Ushu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Tyre and Usu are the same kingdom populated by the same peoples.

Yup, more bald conjecture, meaning nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

In the Armana letters all we read is of a dispute over Usu and the complainings of the King of being confined to a worthless island.....where he feared he would die. Adios

sugarhitman, you have acknowledged that people lived on the island of Tyre back in the 13th c. BCE. You have acknowledged that the nearby coastal town was known as Ushu at that time. In fact it was known as Ushu even at the time of Ashurbanipal. Tyre of course was known as Tyre at the same time, so we have two separate entities, Tyre and Ushu circa 650 BCE and that's sixty years before the siege. Ushu was always of lesser significance than Tyre, as shown by the more frequent reference to Tyre than to Ushu and the bible talks of Tyre, not Ushu. That's because they were interested in the island trading state, not the daughters of the field, as Ezekiel calls Ushu and similar mainland facilities.

spin

Johnny Skeptic · 01-26-2008, 07:56 AM

Consider the following from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics say that the book of Daniel was written in 200 B.C. after the events, and then say that it is historically incorrect....even after being written after the events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But there would not be any critics if Daniel had predicted that the messiah's name would be Jesus, that Pontius Piliate would become the governor of Palestine, that Jesus' mother would be Mary, and that Titus would destroy the Temple in 70 A.D.

You are not making any sense. If a God exists, and wants people to believe that he can predict the future, why would he inspire prophecies that he knew in advance would not be accepted by the majority of the people in the world when he could easily have convinced everyone in the world that he can predict the future thousands of years ago.

What you need is a MOTIVE for God's refusal to indisputably prove that he is able to predict the future, which he could easily do if he exists, and you do not have one. Therefore, you lose. No rational person would ever accept a God who needlessly caused doubt and confusion when he could easily satisfy the objections of critics if he wanted to.

WHY DIDN'T EZEKIEL MENTION ALEXANDER? WOULDN'T THAT HAVE STRENGTHENED THE FAITH OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS?

No rational motive = no God of the Bible. It is a preposterous notion that a God exists who is not able to convince skeptics to believe that he is able to predict the future.

sugarhitman · 01-26-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

He said he left it he does not say he abandon control of it. He was forced to leave this place. He even mentioned that the King of Sidon would not even ALLOW him and his people to go on land to get water.

Ushu is not Tyre. The king of Tyre clearly indicates this. For some reason you refuse to read the source texts.

If you read EA 148, you'll see that Abi-Milki didn't actual own Ushu. It was his source of water and he requests the pharaoh to give it to him. The king of Sidon has not captured Ushu. So yes, you knew it. You're wrong, yet again.

Now true to form, you will refuse to deal with most of what you read. Everyone will of course see that you are deliberately fooling yourself though no-one else.

Yeah, in Tyre.

You're certainly wrong, but then Zimrida doesn't have the resource to maintain a siege of Tyre.

Bald assertion. Once again caught saying things you haven't got a clue about.

Another bald assertion demonstrating the same cluelessness.

Yet another bald assertion, showing just as much cluelessness. When you don't know what you're talking about, why say so much? You haven't read any of the whinging of the other kinglets, so you don't know that everyone whinges like Abi-Milki in order to get something out of the pharaoh. You've seen that Tyre survived for 13 years against Babylon, so your conclusion is baseless.

Actually at the time of the Amarna letters this was not the case. Ushu was a source of resources. According to EA 148 it wasn't the king of Tyre's possession, but the pharaoh's, though obviously he depended on it for food and water.

"May the lord my king turn to his servant and give Ushu to his servant (as) a vessel for him to drink from." He goes on to say, "...the king of Zidon takes daily my infantry, so let the king give attention to his servant and give orders to his deputy, and may he give Uzu for water for his servant, for the acquiring of wood, for straw, for clay."

Zimrida hasn't got Ushu as yet, but Abi-Milki asks for it just the same. Zimrida takes it by the time of the following letter.

You have not met my challenge. You have no text that equates Ushu with Palai-Tyre. You have no text that predates the earliest use of Ushu that refers to Palai-Tyre, so you must conclude that the place was originally called Ushu. Otherwise prove a case.

The king of Tyre himself calls it Ushu, not Tyre. He lives in Tyre, not Ushu.

Totally wrong. As usual.

Rubbish. We are dealing with periods 800 years apart. One thing that is constant is that Tyre is the island and Ushu is on the mainland.

There was a city on the mainland, which you know is Ushu.

That is yet another bald assertion demonstrating yet again the same cluelessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And lastly if the survival of the island depended on the mainland, and the dispute was over this city, which then was more important? Common-sense rules in the end. :wave:

The mainland can be captured but Tyre lives on. Obviously the island is more important. The mainland supplied resources, just as the empire supplied Rome its resources. sugarhitman wants you to believe otherwise. Hand the boy an all day sucker.

spin

"Zimrida has taken Usu FROM your servent WHO HAS LEFT IT. Now WE have no water, no timber, and no place to bury our dead." Oh this proves you wrong Spin in saying that Tyre did not have this land and that it belonged to Egypt. You first said that the king wanted to give control of Usu to Egypt (so as to remove the Sidonians off the land) now it didnt belond to them in the first place. And if they lived on the island and did not have the mainland then how did they survive? I wonder where did they get their timber? Where did they bury their dead? The fact is the land of Usu was the capital. The Sidonians forced these people off the land. They probaly fled to the island to seek refuge in the temples. To say that Tyre did not have the land before these letters is absurd. Why dont you qoute that part where he also calls Tyre the land belonging to Egypt I will if you wont:

"The King (Egypt) has APPOINTED me to protect Tyre, the HANDMAID OF THE
king...." EA# 149

Egypt ruled over all that land. The king was asking for his land back or he would die.:
"Let the king direct his attention towards his servent and give him (back) UZU in order that he may live, and in order that he may drink water." #150

So will you tell us spin that the king did not have this land before these letters? He didnt? Well gee I wonder how he survived all that time living on a island where there is no water, no timber and no place to bury the dead (maybe they threw their dead into the sea). :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-26-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So will you tell us spin that the king did not have this land before these letters?

Nope, I will not allow you to be a dictator and exclusively determine whose questions get answered. It is unfair for you to ask skeptics to answer your questions and refuse to answer their questions. This is the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. The only discussions that you are willing to have is discussions about questions that you ask, and answers to skeptics' questions that you carefully cherry-pick based upon how difficult you believe they are to answer. Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Unless you answer that question, I will not answer your question, and I enourage other skeptics to refuse to answer your questions unless you agree to answer skeptics' questions.

I assume that you do not believe that God will give you the wisdom to provide good answers to skeptics' questions.

I have made over 10,000 posts at the IIDB since June of 2005. In most of my debates with fundies they have become evasive, and your evasiveness has proven to be the rule and not the exception. Please be advised that the undecided crowd, who are mostly the only crowd who both sides have a chance to influence, have probably already declared you the loser by default since you frequently refuse to answer questions, which proves that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend you are. You ought to know that refusing to answer questions never wins a debate.

spin · 01-26-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Zimrida has taken Usu FROM your servent WHO HAS LEFT IT. Now WE have no water, no timber, and no place to bury our dead." Oh this proves you wrong Spin in saying that Tyre did not have this land and that it belonged to Egypt.

Doh! Tyre has a relationship with Ushu. Times are troubled. Tyre is forced to withdraw from Ushu for fear. EA 148, "give your servant Ushu". Zimrida captures Ushu. EA 149, "Zimrida has Ushu".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You first said that the king wanted to give control of Usu to Egypt

Umm, no, I didn't. Read EA 148.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

(so as to remove the Sidonians off the land) now it didnt belond to them in the first place.

Who said it did?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And if they lived on the island and did not have the mainland then how did they survive?

Trade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I wonder where did they get their timber?

Lebanon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Where did they bury their dead?

On the mainland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The fact is the land of Usu was the capital.

Can anyone see the logic in sugarhitman's contorted brain? Anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Sidonians forced these people off the land.

Sidon forced the Tyrians to withdraw to Tyre, then captured Ushu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

They probaly fled to the island to seek refuge in the temples.

Temples are usually in cities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

To say that Tyre did not have the land before these letters is absurd.

That would be difficult fore you to argue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Why dont you qoute that part where he also calls Tyre the land belonging to Egypt I will if you wont:

"The King (Egypt) has APPOINTED me to protect Tyre, the HANDMAID OF THE
king...." EA# 149

That's what it says and Abi-Milki wrote it from Tyre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Egypt ruled over all that land. The king was asking for his land back or he would die.:
"Let the king direct his attention towards his servent and give him (back) UZU in order that he may live, and in order that he may drink water." #150

You falsely stick "(back)" into the text. It is not there. You are just inventing a text that pleases you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So will you tell us spin that the king did not have this land before these letters?

He asks for it in EA 148. Can't you read?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

He didnt? Well gee I wonder how he survived all that time living on a island where there is no water, no timber and no place to bury the dead (maybe they threw their dead into the sea). :wave:

Through trade. After all that's what Tyre did.

Don't you see the problem in calling Ushu Tyre? No?

spin

spin · 01-26-2008, 08:44 AM

We have seen the island of Tyre in use in the 13th c. BCE while the coastal city named Ushu was a separate entity. We've seen that Hiram augmented the island, enlarging it, raising its defenses and building temples. Let's turn to the time of the last important king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal.

In an account of his deeds, he writes,

In my third campaign I marched against Ba'lu, king of Tyre, who lives amidst the sea, because he did not heed my royal order, did not listen to my personal commands. I surrounded him with redoubts, seized his communications, on sea and land. I intercepted and made scarce their food supply and forced them to submit to my yoke.

Once again we see that Tyre is the city in the midst of the sea. Later, in the same text, we find,

On my return march, I conquered the town Ushu the emplacement of which is on the seacoast. I killed those inhabitants of Ushu who did not obey their governors by refusing to deliver the tribute which they had to pay annually.

According to Ashurbanipal, Tyre is in the midst of the sea and Ushu is on the seacoast. And that's the same information we got from the Amarna letters.

spin

sugarhitman · 01-26-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Zimrida has taken Usu FROM your servent WHO HAS LEFT IT. Now WE have no water, no timber, and no place to bury our dead." Oh this proves you wrong Spin in saying that Tyre did not have this land and that it belonged to Egypt.

Doh! Tyre has a relationship with Ushu. Times are troubled. Tyre is forced to withdraw from Ushu for fear. EA 148, "give your servant Ushu". Zimrida captures Ushu. EA 149, "Zimrida has Ushu".

Umm, no, I didn't. Read EA 148.

Who said it did?

Trade.

Lebanon.

On the mainland.

Can anyone see the logic in sugarhitman's contorted brain? Anyone?

Sidon forced the Tyrians to withdraw to Tyre, then captured Ushu.

Temples are usually in cities.

That would be difficult fore you to argue.

That's what it says and Abi-Milki wrote it from Tyre.

You falsely stick "(back)" into the text. It is not there. You are just inventing a text that pleases you.

He asks for it in EA 148. Can't you read?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

He didnt? Well gee I wonder how he survived all that time living on a island where there is no water, no timber and no place to bury the dead (maybe they threw their dead into the sea). :wave:

Through trade. After all that's what Tyre did.

Don't you see the problem in calling Ushu Tyre? No?

spin

Ahh but spin the king said that Usu (which is in Lebanon) was where he got timber, and water and buried their dead. How could they have buried them there if they did not have this land? The king makes clear it is this area where the timber came from. Your usage of Lebanon and mainland is done to mislead, be specific. He said USU. And he said that when the city was taken from him he LEFT the city. You cant abandon control (which is voluntary) of something that was taken from you. And you can't leave something if you were not there.

So if there were other means of survival as you say why did he say the island would not survive without the mainland city? He said they couldnt even get water, so where did they get water?, what spring or river they used? To say the mainland is vague misleading and an evasive tactit you are using because you know that the island was dependent on the mainland city...and it only. Tyre and Usu are of the same kingdom just like Jerusalem and Israel. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-26-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So if there were other means of survival as you say why did he say the island would not survive without the mainland city?

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Why does God refuse to provide indisputable evidence that would convince everyone that he is able to predict the future? Why do you ask questions, but refuse to answer questions? No rational motives = no God the Bible.

spin · 01-26-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Ahh but spin the king said that Usu (which is in Lebanon) was where he got timber, and water and buried their dead.

Ahh, sugarhitman you aren't reading the text. You are projecting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

How could they have buried them there if they did not have this land?

Ushu was a city. They certainly didn't bury their dead there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The king makes clear it is this area where the timber came from.

You are not reading the text. All he said was that there was no wood. The timber obviously didn't come from Ushu: it doesn't grow on the coast. It came through Ushu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Your usage of Lebanon and mainland is done to mislead, be specific. He said USU. And he said that when the city was taken from him he LEFT the city. You cant abandon control (which is voluntary) of something that was taken from you. And you can't leave something if you were not there.

Why are you having so much trouble here? Tyre used Ushu. Tyre was forced to abandon the place. Beyond that, you're inventing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So if there were other means of survival as you say why did he say the island would not survive without the mainland city?

The city was obviously restricted not having access to resources. Rme would have been restricted if it couldn't get wheat from Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

He said they couldnt even get water, so where did they get water?, what spring or river they used?

If you're unhappy with "the mainland" then that's your problem. You are the one who wants to say more than the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

To say the mainland is vague misleading

Rubbish. The water didn't come from Ushu. It was a city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Tyre and Usu are of the same kingdom just like Jerusalem and Israel. :wave:

The king of Tyre calls Ushu "Ushu" not "Tyre". The text contradicts you, ie you're still wrong.

spin

sugarhitman · 01-27-2008, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Ahh but spin the king said that Usu (which is in Lebanon) was where he got timber, and water and buried their dead.

Ahh, sugarhitman you aren't reading the text. You are projecting.

Ushu was a city. They certainly didn't bury their dead there.

You are not reading the text. All he said was that there was no wood. The timber obviously didn't come from Ushu: it doesn't grow on the coast. It came through Ushu.

Why are you having so much trouble here? Tyre used Ushu. Tyre was forced to abandon the place. Beyond that, you're inventing.

The city was obviously restricted not having access to resources. Rme would have been restricted if it couldn't get wheat from Egypt.

If you're unhappy with "the mainland" then that's your problem. You are the one who wants to say more than the text.

Rubbish. The water didn't come from Ushu. It was a city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Tyre and Usu are of the same kingdom just like Jerusalem and Israel. :wave:

The king of Tyre calls Ushu "Ushu" not "Tyre". The text contradicts you, ie you're still wrong.

spin

Either way without USHU (OLD TYRE) the island could not do those things as the king said. No water no wood no cemetary....no survivors.

I've found something of interest in the Menander history:

"And now the king of Assyria invaded all Syria and Phoenicia....Against these did the king of Assyria send an army...but soon made peace with them all....but Sidon, Ace, and PalseTyrus (PalaeTyre) revolted."---Whiston

"Then Tyre, Sidon, and Arke, as well as old TYRE, and many other cities that had handed themselves over to the king of the Assyrians revolted..." Niese

It seems that USHU USU UZU and Old Tyre are one and the same. Menander was qouting the Tyrian Archives...Whoever this city is, or whatever its name, Ezekiel predicted that Nebby would attack it....and it too was considered Tyre. :wave:

01-26-2008, 08:44 AM	#326
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	We have seen the island of Tyre in use in the 13th c. BCE while the coastal city named Ushu was a separate entity. We've seen that Hiram augmented the island, enlarging it, raising its defenses and building temples. Let's turn to the time of the last important king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal. In an account of his deeds, he writes, In my third campaign I marched against Ba'lu, king of Tyre, who lives amidst the sea, because he did not heed my royal order, did not listen to my personal commands. I surrounded him with redoubts, seized his communications, on sea and land. I intercepted and made scarce their food supply and forced them to submit to my yoke. Once again we see that Tyre is the city in the midst of the sea. Later, in the same text, we find, On my return march, I conquered the town Ushu the emplacement of which is on the seacoast. I killed those inhabitants of Ushu who did not obey their governors by refusing to deliver the tribute which they had to pay annually. According to Ashurbanipal, Tyre is in the midst of the sea and Ushu is on the seacoast. And that's the same information we got from the Amarna letters. spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.