Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-21-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

www.ancientworlds.net

I am not going to wade through all of that.

It doesn't have sources, so one would be better off with a site that's more serious and dependable -- and provides a bibliography.

spin

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Your claim is absurd, the bible is much more than a book of prediction, it is the Living Word of God.

On the contrary: the Bible is not even a book of prediction.
.

Oh yeah, I forgot, all of the prophecy that is accurate in the bible is either a self-fulfilled prophecy or else a forgery written after the fact. :wave:

Jack the Bodiless · 01-21-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Herodotus says...

Interesting that you attempt to cite Herodotus as a source.

Herodotus wasn't particularly accurate about events that transpired many centuries before he was born, but he was much better at what would have been recent history for him. Here is what he has to say about the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh

Amasis II:

Quote:

Herodotus relates that under his prudent administration Egypt reached the highest pitch of prosperity; he adorned the temples of Lower Egypt especially with splendid monolithic shrines and other monuments (his activity here is proved by remains still existing). To the Greeks, Amasis assigned the commercial colony of Naucratis on the Canopic branch of the Nile, and when the temple of Delphi was burnt he contributed 1,000 talents to the rebuilding. He also married a Greek princess named Ladice daughter of King Battus III (see Battus) and he made alliances with Polycrates of Samos and Croesus of Lydia.

His kingdom consisted probably of Egypt only, as far as the First Cataract, but to this he added Cyprus, and his influence was great in Cyrene. At the beginning of his long reign, before the death of Apries, he appears to have sustained an attack by Nebuchadrezzar II (568 BC).

This is the failure of the Egypt prophecy! Nebby was supposed to defeat and plunder Egypt, and leave it an uninhabited wilderness for 40 years.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Oh yeah, I forgot, all of the prophecy that is accurate in the Bible is either a self-fulfilled prophecy or else a forgery written after the fact.

But this thread is about the Tyre prophecy, not about other Bible prophecies. In your opinion, can the Tyre prophecy stand upon its own merits? If so, please tell us why the Tyre prophecy can stand upon its own merits. If not, then we need to debate a prophecy that you believe can stand upon its own merits.

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

sugarhitman. First, you are not answering my questions, but trying to make counter offers. Please just answer the questions. Here they are again:

Why were all the other Phoenician cities built on island, but you think Tyre, which was founded by Sidon, was not?
Why would the central city of Tyre be on the land if there was an island off the coast that they could inhabit and thus be safer from siege?
Why does Hiram king of Tyre say to Solomon, "do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber, which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island"? (Josephus, AJ 8.2.7. See also 8.6.3)
Why does Josephus tell us that Hiram "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them", Contra Apion 1.17, if Tyre was on the mainland?
Where were "Old Tyre"'s harbors?
Why did Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each besiege Tyre a few decades after the other, if they had each conquered the city and dominated it? Was it not because Tyre was an island and it came to an accord with each king from the safety of that island?
What did Nebuchadnezzar do against the inhabitants of the island for the 13 years?
Why does Ezekiel say, "King Nebuchadnezzar made his army labor hard against Tyre... yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor he expended against it", 29:18?
Why does Ezekiel refer to the mainland possessions connected to Tyre as the "daughters on the land", if "Old Tyre" was on land?
Why does Ezekiel refer to Tyre as being in the midst of the sea, 27:32, if it was not an island?

Can you just answer the questions?

And I have asked you before, when you cite something be meaningful in your citation. Give the exact source otherwise you are giving nothing. Is that clear? Your half-ass citations are worthless, for there is no way to understand who is saying what in what context from what sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

" Moreover King Hiram was himself a builder. He enlarged the island portion of Tyre by filling in the shallower regions of the sea around, and this NEW LAND he laid out in squares of PALACES AND TEMPLES" www.publicbookshelf.com

After doing a google search for your quote, I discover it was written in 1913, a beginners guide to history called "The Story of the Greatest Nations and the World's Greatest Events", written before much was known of Tyre and its relations with Assyria and Babylon. Scratched as a source. You have to do better than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Originally Tyre was populated on the mainland.....When Hiram came to power (969-936) he brought massive changes....he joined the two islands together....He not only built the royal palace, but great temples to Melkart and Astarte." www.ancientworlds.net
No sources given from this website. Scratched. Sources are important when you make an argument. You want to know where the information came from so that you can weigh up its validity.

This seems to be a rewrite of Josephus, except for the implied error of you give to "The island itself was said to have been created by Hiram." Look at the quotation from Josephus in my fourth question and see that Hiram did indeed unite the two islands, but they were inhabited before that time, for he simply "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them." You would have saved yourself the time and the error if you had read my questions and tried to respond to them.

We know that Tyre didn't exist at the time Herodotus ascribes, so Herodotus is obviously wrong. He was not an inhabitant of the Levant, so he was out of his field -- but then he was only learning the trade and inventing it as he went, for there were few historians before him. You can forgive him his errors.

We have discounted Herodotus simply because we know his information is faulty.

Now that this crap has been exposed, please get back to my questions.

spin

The royal palace was not on these small islands, until Hiram joined them together, then he built the royal palace. The point I am making is that some people have been falsely led to believe that before Hiram Tyre was a island fortress. It was not. Hiram created this into a city in the 10th century. (there was a small population on the island, but it was no city). In the book of Joshua ch.19 100s of years before Hiram was concieved the borders of the land of Asher: "And the border turned to Ramah AND THE FORTIFIED CITY OF TYRE." Ramah was an ancient coastal city, sharing the coast with fortified Tyre...the coastal city. And as for as my sources not having sources.

"Recommended reading: The Phoenicians and the West by Maria Eugenia Aubet (1997), from Cambridge University Press (348pp) The Heritage of Tyre, edited by Martha Sharp Joukowsky (1992) from Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. (188 pp)" Ancientworlds.net

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What historical evidence is there that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events? The correct answer is, none at all.

Your side is arguing both sides of the issue, you claim that the prophecy was written after the destruction of Tyre and your buddies claim that the prophecy is innacurate. Why would the prophecy be inaccurate if it was written after the event? Well, er, uh. . .

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Herodotus says...

Interesting that you attempt to cite Herodotus as a source.

Herodotus wasn't particularly accurate about events that transpired many centuries before he was born, but he was much better at what would have been recent history for him. Here is what he has to say about the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh

Amasis II:

Quote:

Herodotus relates that under his prudent administration Egypt reached the highest pitch of prosperity; he adorned the temples of Lower Egypt especially with splendid monolithic shrines and other monuments (his activity here is proved by remains still existing). To the Greeks, Amasis assigned the commercial colony of Naucratis on the Canopic branch of the Nile, and when the temple of Delphi was burnt he contributed 1,000 talents to the rebuilding. He also married a Greek princess named Ladice daughter of King Battus III (see Battus) and he made alliances with Polycrates of Samos and Croesus of Lydia.

His kingdom consisted probably of Egypt only, as far as the First Cataract, but to this he added Cyprus, and his influence was great in Cyrene. At the beginning of his long reign, before the death of Apries, he appears to have sustained an attack by Nebuchadrezzar II (568 BC).

This is the failure of the Egypt prophecy! Nebby was supposed to defeat and plunder Egypt, and leave it an uninhabited wilderness for 40 years.

note the emphasis on "he appears to have substained an attack" does not mean he did. Egypt was defeated by Babylon. Common sense should tell you that had not Babylon defeated Egypt, it would not have been a world empire. Egypt was a superpower after all.

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What historical evidence is there that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events? The correct answer is, none at all.

Your side is arguing both sides of the issue, you claim that the prophecy was written after the destruction of Tyre and your buddies claim that the prophecy is innacurate. Why would the prophecy be inaccurate if it was written after the event? Well, er, uh. . .

Great question! I wonder how they will respond now

makerowner · 01-21-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

This is the failure of the Egypt prophecy! Nebby was supposed to defeat and plunder Egypt, and leave it an uninhabited wilderness for 40 years.

note the emphasis on "he appears to have substained an attack" does not mean he did. Egypt was defeated by Babylon. Common sense should tell you that had not Babylon defeated Egypt, it would not have been a world empire. Egypt was a superpower after all.

This makes no sense. It is quite possible to have more than one superpower in existence at the same time; perhaps you've heard of the Cold War? The prophecy says that Egypt would be uninhabited for 40 years, yet during that period "Egypt reached the highest pitch of prosperity".

Jack the Bodiless · 01-21-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

note the emphasis on "he appears to have substained an attack" does not mean he did. Egypt was defeated by Babylon. Common sense should tell you that had not Babylon defeated Egypt, it would not have been a world empire. Egypt was a superpower after all.

No, Egypt was NOT defeated by Babylon (not then: it had already lost territory in the Battle of Carchemish, but that was before Nebby attacked Tyre).

The Babylonian empire did NOT include Egypt.

Learn some history!

The prophecy failed.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.