Sauron

There is no evidence of any deficiency in the fortress due to its design. And the article does not make any such mention whatsoever. If you want to prove that hypothesis, then be our guest. But the fact that the fort is unique in shape does not prove that it wasn't effective.

Nor does the article imply *anything* about other fortresses that have shapes other than straight walls. So your second comment "not every fortress may be said to have turned out well" is just wishful guessing on your part, because it is clearly not supported by anything in the article itself.

I realize you'd love to get yourself off the hook here by stacking two unproven assumptions, and then making a broad-based claim about other fortresses. But honestly -- did you really think it would work here? With all these people watching you, knowing your past history and pattern of debate?

Please.

cajela

Hey, you big meany, I was suppporting you. :-P

Anyway I didn't give the link, just told him how to look for it. "Fool" indeed! And you are a big old grumpypants with no friends and you smell.

Right, retaliation over. Shall we be friends again?

Sauron

I meant that in a *good* way. Sorry.

cajela

OK. Pax. You may carry on.

Though how you can do it, I don't know. I fully expect lee to start quibbling about the meaning of "is" any time now.

Sven

OK, we can do this. I just have to change my profile, so that the section "Basic Beliefs" reads "Christian"!
:rolling:

Sauron

The Great Eye sees you viewing the thread, lee merrill.

What is your next move? :rolling?

meforevidence

LXX

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I must say I am more reminded of Saruman! Who had inclinations to persuasion by dint of his voice.


Well, I have even linked to a skeptic poster in this thread who supported a claim I was making about Arrian! I have posted many links, three in my previous post. "Beware his voice!" (Gandalf)

"Men" is not a collective noun? And I did address your last response, as I recall, and now we need a response to my response:

Sauron: "Since the topic of the sentence (three men) didn't change, then it was obvious from the grammar that they were also the ones who drove away."

Lee: "Well yes, and then the rule fails."

The rule given did not mention the topic of the sentence being involved in the decision, I do agree that it is, sometimes.

This was meant to be ironical, maybe I should post disclaimers [this was meant ironically!]...

Prophecies are more convincing if they are improbable, but that need not be a requirement for every aspect of every prophecy.

Have you studied the history of Neb's campaigns? I seem to be recalling that you were saying that you were only quoting experts, not claiming to be an expert yourself. Beware his voice?

Yes, I agree that people knowing about Neb when the prophecy was given does not prove that the prophecy was prior to the event.

But this cannot mean only Neb, because Ezekiel didn't equate them. Let's repeat our conclusions?

Well, an observation of the state of a city then does not deteriorate with age, and he was a witness, he went on-site to survey and dig, does it matter what his archaeological techniques were like? Seeing the current state when you visit requires no archaeology.

Now maybe he was waxing poetical. But what would a metaphor of "ruins" be a metaphor for? It would most probably indicate a state of ruin, but even if it doesn't, it does indicate some resemblance to a wreck, which will be evidence that the city could indeed have been made a rock at some time.

And for such an ephemeral event, this proves ... nothing! We could not prove that the Lost City of Machu Picchu had a temple, until we had evidence for it, and lack of evidence for this temple does not allow us to conclude that no such temple ever existed.

I apologize, I was wrong. Lying means you say what you know is untrue, though, and not reposting the links made me think there were indeed no links.

I did only see one link, though, were there more?

Yes, so they don't set out to view Phoenician ruins underground with this technique.

The point at issue was what soundings meant in Encyclopedia Brittanica, though.

But weren't you all the ones saying this was a good design? I have to prove my point, and you do not?

One consideration in such a design, is that it is more difficult to move soldiers quickly from one point of the star to another. Nor can they shoot any opposing soldiers who get inside, in another point of the star! And there is much less room inside the walls for storing supplies, in such a design, and forts need to withstand seiges, and need lots of cupboards and cabinets. So there are significant disadvantages that weigh against the advantages, and it sure is more work to make the walls bend like that.

But the article called it unique, and then noting that other forts did not pick up on this design, indicates that they thought other designs were better. This is not such a difficult deduction to make!

Regards,
Lee

meforevidence

Meforevidence:
Even if we do not have the “original� text, we still should refer to the oldest text. Common sense <deleted> would lead most scholars <deleted> to refer to the closest text to the time. You are the one pretending to know so much about trying to change languages to fit your little theories. You modern day example (just like your <deleted> “turn of phrase� example is not valid. You have not read the texts given. It is obvious Sur was near Egypt. <deleted> I have spoken with other atheists (who are open minded and diligent in their studies) who believe you are wrong on this subject. They do not believe there was a miraculous prophecy but that Sur was located near Egypt and not Tyre. <deleted>

2. As far as the LXX goes, even your fearless leader (Mr. Frank Zindler) who I have a lot of respect for says the following: “The problem for true believers is this: The Greek version(Septuagint) reflects a Hebrew text more than a thousand years older than the Hebrew text used as the standard for the King James. Shouldn't we follow the Greek — even if it is a translation — instead of the Hebrew? It should be noted that the authors of the New Testament, when citing the Old Testament, cited it in Greek resembling the LXX far more often than the Masoretic Textus Receptus. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus, shouldn't it be good enough for Presbyterians?�
<deleted>

You also keep trying to refer to the more modern translations which are not correct in translation. You like to refer to a text written well after 500 A.D. (Masoretic Text). I will continue to refer to the text that is an earlier one simply because that would most likely be closer to the original text. I did not add the iota but my statement is still true.

sauron: Let me see if I understand: you have a new hypothesis that Sur is in Egypt, or very near to it.

Meforevidence: It is not simply a hypothesis, it is written down in the oldest text we have multiple times. I looked at this with other atheists as well and they were at least interested that the evidence is there. <deleted> .

Sauron: 1. The Ezekiel text speaks about Tyre/Sur being a mercantile powerhouse, with trade partners and enormous wealth. There was no such economic powerhouse in that area "fronting Egypt"; no such city with the trade connections listed by Ezekiel. By trying to locate Sur in this new Egyptian location, you make it impossible to match Ezekiel's description above.

Meforevidence: Not "Tyre/Sur" but "Sur" in chapter 26 and 27, and "Tyre" in chapters 28 and 29.
You really don’t know much about the history of Egypt at this time. There were many trades at this area and that is why Ethiopia and Assyria were fighting for the control of Egypt. When Egypt was attacked by Assyria, the king tore down the temples and took back many treasures to put into their own temples to pay homage to their idols. The temple of Herecles that was located in Tyre was likened to the one that was also found in Egypt. Herodotus records that. The Saïtic revival in art and architecture, in commercial and general prosperity, which Psamatik the First inaugurated, continued under his successors. To the short reign of Psamatik II. belong a considerable number of inscriptions, some good bas-reliefs at Abydos and Philæ, and a large number of statues. One of these, in the collection of the Vatican, is remarkable for its beauty. Apries erected numerous stelæ, and at least one pair of obelisks, wherewith he adorned the Temple of Neith at Saïs. Amasis afforded great encouragement to art and architecture. He added a court of entrance to the above temple, with propylæa of unusual dimensions, adorned the dromos conducting to it with numerous andro-sphinxes, erected colossal statues within the temple precincts, and conveyed thither from Elephantine a monolithic shrine or chamber of extraordinary dimensions. Traces of his architectural activity are also found at Memphis, Thebes, Abydos, Bubastis, and Thmuïs or Leontopolis. Statuary flourished during his reign. Even portrait-painting was attempted; and Amasis sent a likeness of himself, painted on panel, as a present to the people of Cyrene. It was maintained by the Egyptians of a century later that the reign of Amasis was the most prosperous time which Egypt had ever seen, the land being more productive, the cities more numerous, and the entire people more happy than either previously or subsequently. Amasis certainly gave a fresh impulse to commerce, since he held frequent communication with the Greek states of Asia Minor, as well as with the settlers at Cyrene, and gave increased privileges to the trading community of Naucratis.I can also provide much more information on the riches and trade in this area but it would do no good since it is above your head. At the time Isaiah was prophesying, the Assyrians were still in power.Much of Egypt had been rebuilt shortly before Nebuchadnezzar started his reign.

sauron: You referred earlier to the book fo Judith. Let us assume -- for the sake of argument -- that the book of Judith were 100% correct. Now your hypothesis has another problem. The Judith text refers to a rampaging attack by Nebuchadnezzar. However, history records no such campaigns by Nebuchadnezzar on the border of Egypt.

Meforevidence: If you are speaking of Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd, Tyre would be an example of a historical account, yet in the book of Judith, this does not seem to be Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd. Many scholars believe this was actually Senacherib by aligning writings of archeological finds. The California Institute of Ancient Studies has some information on this at: http://specialtyinterests.net/

sauron: In your flailing about to avoid admitting a failed prophecy in Ezekiel 26, you tried to find another Sur in the area. But you forgot to check it against the secondary requirements.

Meforevidence: I am not flailing. <deleted>

Nebuchadnezzar did go to Egypt. It is certain that in B.C. 568 Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition into Egypt According to all accounts this date fell into the lifetime of Apries. Amasis, however, the successor of Apries, appears to have been Nebuchadnezzar's direct antagonist, and to have resisted him in the field, while Apries remained in the palace at Saïs. The two were joint kings from B.C. 571 to B.C. 565. Nebuchadnezzar, at first, neglected Saïs, and proceeded, by way of Heliopolis and Bubastis (Ezek. xxx. 17), against the old capitals, Memphis and Thebes. Having taken these, and "destroyed the idols and made the images to cease," he advanced up the Nile valley to Elephantine, which he took, and then endeavoured to penetrate into Nubia. A check, however, was inflicted on his army by Nes-Hor, the Governor of the South, whereupon he gave up his idea of Nubian conquest. Returning down the valley, he completed that ravage of Egypt which is described by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is probable that in B.C. 565, three years after his first invasion, he took Saïs and put the aged Apries to death.[30] Amasis he allowed still to reign, but only as a tributary king, and thus Egypt became "a base kingdom" (Ezek. xxix. 14), "the basest of the kingdoms" (ibid. verse 15), if its former exaltation were taken into account.
Meforevidence: We also know through history and the Bible that just before Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, that Jerusalem turned toward Egypt for support and for military strength. Egypt ruled that region of the coasts at that time.

sauron: No, in fact Egypt did not. Egypt was kicked out of the area as a result of the battle of Carchemish, eight years earlier. Jerusalem appealed to Egypt, but there was no reason for her to hope for Egypt's help. After getting spanked earlier, Egypt was in no mood to go to war to help some backwater pronvince like Judah. There was precious little to gain from it, especially since renewed Egyptian resistance might encourage Nebuchadnezzar to take his armies into the Nile and bring the fight right to Egypt's own doorstep.

Meforevidence: I did not say that Egypt would not help Judah, I said that Judah turned to Egypt for help. Before the battle, Jerusalem and Egypt made an agreement to be allies. Apries, the son of Neco, brought this war to an end in the first year of his reign (B.C. 590) by the arms of one of his generals and he ventured, in B.C. 588, to conclude a treaty with Zedekiah, king of Judah, and to promise him assistance, if he would join him against the Babylonians. This Zedekiah consented to do, and the war followed which terminated in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, and the transfer of the Jewish people to Babylonia.

Meforevidence: I also said “yet we know by history that he went through many regions destroying cities and taking slaves. This could be when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city of Sur. There is not much said of Sur after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.� You <deleted> responded:

Sauron: “Also not true.�

Meforevidence: You are wrong again...... It isTRUE. Again, it is certain that in B.C. 568 Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition into Egypt According to all accounts this date fell into the lifetime of Apries. Amasis, however, the successor of Apries, appears to have been Nebuchadnezzar's direct antagonist, and to have resisted him in the field, while Apries remained in the palace at Saïs. The two were joint kings from B.C. 571 to B.C. 565. Nebuchadnezzar, at first, neglected Saïs, and proceeded, by way of Heliopolis and Bubastis (Ezek. xxx. 17), against the old capitals, Memphis and Thebes. Having taken these, and "destroyed the idols and made the images to cease," he advanced up the Nile valley to Elephantine, which he took, and then endeavoured to penetrate into Nubia. A check, however, was inflicted on his army by Nes-Hor, the Governor of the South, whereupon he gave up his idea of Nubian conquest. Returning down the valley, he completed that ravage of Egypt which is described by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is probable that in B.C. 565, three years after his first invasion, he took Saïs and put the aged Apries to death.[30] Amasis he allowed still to reign, but only as a tributary king, and thus Egypt became "a base kingdom" (Ezek. xxix. 14), "the basest of the kingdoms" (ibid. verse 15), if its former exaltation were taken into account.

Meforevidence: The only other reference that I could find outside of the Bible is a letter written during the Crusades. <deleted>

sauron: “<deleted for consistency> Tyre figures prominently in the history of Alexander the Great, appears again during Roman times, and on into the time of the Crusades. Jidejian devotes four chapters to the history of Tyre during the same period (post-Nebuchadnezzar) that you apparently found nothing at all.�

Meforevidence: I don’t know whether to say you are not as smart as I thought you were or that you really are as smart as I think you are. I did not say “Tyre� I said “Sur� Tyre is NOT Sur. Can you give me a good reference book that not only has a commentary but historical or archeological evidence of Tyre being called Sur during that century? I have at least given you documentation before, during and after that century that Sur and Tyre are two seperate places.

Meforevidence: OK, Tyrians is a noun, like American is a noun, but you stated that the word for Tyrians was a “Place.� It is not a place but Tyrian means “a native of Tyre, just as American means “a native of America.� Thus, Tyrian is not simply a “variant spelling� of Tyre any more than American is a variant spelling of America. For anybody who is willing to look it up instead of listening to your pretense of knowledge, here is the site they can go to: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-...pdf/joshua.pdf Joshua 19:29 and Joshua 19:35

Sauron: Gross mistakes like this is *precisely* why your wigged-out Septuagint hypotheses based on language don't hold water, meforevidence. You don't know enough about languages to be floating such "theories" out there.

Meforevidence: blah blah blah…..I know enough to see the difference between Sor and Tyre <deleted> You are the one that is wigged out with your modern translations. Funny how it even matters to you since you would not believe any of them anyway.
You continue to believe in this “variant spelling� theory as well as try to make your “turn of phrase� theory fit when it does not.
<deleted> I realize I have made mistakes in studies before but at least I am open enough to actually change my mind when the evidence is in front of me. You OBVIOUSLY are not. It is also obvious that you are your own audience and are simply doing the “patting yourself on the back.� <deleted>

Meforevidence: You stated that you kicked my ASS. (It kind of turns me on.) Why should I be afraid of the little red eye that always crashes at the end of the movie?

So long.

Amaleq13

Folks, please avoid the rhetoric and inflammatory language and stick to the facts.

Thanks,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator