lee_merrill

Yes, I agree! I meant the picture to be item #1...

Regards,
Lee

FFT

Sailors would have significantly more data to derive their location from. 1) They'd have a basic idea of where they could be, i.e. within 100 miles of their last known position. 2) They'd have as much length coastline as they liked to check to compare to their maps.

lee_merrill

That's a good point! But some fog or a rainstorm would cause a problem with number 2, and even knowing your position within 100 miles would not (I think) be enough, for the test I proposed, the picture even had a caption saying which harbor it was.

But again, this is not a critical issue...

Regards,
Lee

P.S. My Nina book has come in! A new edition, even, from 1994, instead of the 1967(?) version MacDowell references. I shall be busy reading it, and it seems I may have to revise some of my position here...

lee_merrill

A Nina book report...

Well, I find both pros and cons for about every view here, for example, it does seem that the Sidonian and Egyptian ports are considered to be found, but they had to try and find them! The Egyptian port is no more, actually, and the columns underwater are well beyond where they think the coast was, so they didn't get there by Alex throwing them into the sea.

And a large portion of the border of the peninsula is loose sand, and subtracting all the sand away leaves a very un-fortress-like outline, it looks like an "L" shape (I wish I had a scanner).

And they found bedrock, by digging (which it turns out is what soundings do mean) only they were looking for (and found) pottery, which I don't know how conclusive that is about buildings.

But let us say the city did not sink completely, I think the prophecy can still work without that:

Ezekiel 26:14 "I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.

Well, that's different than "never be rebuilt," "built no more" implies construction stops, not that there can't be rebuilding from scratch. And Tyre indeed was demolished, there was an earthquake, as well as the conquerors, and there are observers who reported that it was indeed a ruin, the whole location.

And the sinking into the sea might refer to the harbors, and the fortifications, the parts symbolic of Tyre, and also the people being overcome, as in Eze. 26:20.

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

More like a game of internet dodgeball....

1. Wrong, they did not have to "try and find them". The Sidonian port -- at least -- is still in use. One does not have to "try and find" an active port.

2. The Egyptian port's location was well known from earlier records and archaeological evidence.

1. The columns underwater are part of the port complex.

2. Please cite the page number as well as the paragraph where they discount the columns' presence as the result of Alexander.

1. Silting has occurred on the peninsula - that has been stated about two dozen times now. And since the original causeway was artificial, there's nothing unusual about that.

2. There is no such thing as an "un-fortress like" outline. A fortress can be erected on any piece of ground.

1. Yes they found bedrock. No surprise there; but also no help for your pseudo-argument, either.

2. No, that is not what "soundings" mean. I refer you to the earlier link I gave you about soundings.

You don't know the use or value of pottery in archaeology? Why am I not surprised.

1. No, it can't because nothing you've presented so far supports a claim of *any* part of the city sinking.

2. Being covered with sand -- or with the dirt and layers of successive generations of building -- is not sinking.

3. The Egyptian harbor was filled with water to begin with - it was a harbor, remember? You can't sink a harbor. Being silted up is not sinking.

1. "Built no more" does not imply that construction stops. It means exactly what it says: no more building. So "built no more" WOULD imply no rebuilding from scratch - your lame attempt to state otherwise is transparently pathetic.

2. However, since Tyre was never totally demolished, that means that all successive generations have rebuilt it.

Tyre was not demolished - and today is an active city, in spite of the prophecy "built no more".

Except that isn't what the text says. As usual.

Casper

You apologists really should study something besides theology if you want to get a day job.

Tyre is an excellent example of a batholithic peak. As the shoreline ebbs and flows, the entire silt cycle crawls down the coast. When it gets to a reflection, it piles up. Some places have to dredge to prevent their piers from becoming little peninsulas, creating little coves further down the beach.

The original builders probably encountered either a small island or a small peninsula, perfect for defense, and even more appropriate, a natural pier to get the fishing boats out there further. Adding layers of habitation, as well as constantly fighting the erosion process, only helped the little rock stay above the waterline over centuries. Why would it sink? You would have to dredge just to keep it from being overtaken by beach shift. The only thing really affecting its elevation is hydrostatic rebound of the tectonic plates between ice ages, and we aren't even close to going back that far to have more than a meter or two difference.

It never sank. If it did, there would be no way for it to re-emerge, especially after the medieval warm period.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, I should have said this about just the Egyptian port.

What evidence do we have for this, though, may I ask? Nina's book says "Renan was unable to decide upon the exact location of the 'Egyptian' port facing south," and he was on an archaeological search for it, "During the years 1934 to 1936 an aerial survey of Tyre was made by A. Poidebard, s.j. with the purpose of locating the 'Egyptian' port mentioned in classical texts" (p.32). Not "shown on classical maps"!

But the silt has completely covered the "Egyptian port", and one-third of the Sidonian one! So why would they raise columns out in the middle of the harbor? This is a conclusion, not a statement in the book, but a pretty reasonable conclusion, I would say, to hold that Alex didn't throw them so far out to sea.

Certainly it's possible, but it would be quite difficult on the part that is left after the sand is removed! Again, I wish I had a scanner. Or you could buy the book! "Tyre Through the Ages," through Amazon.com, and the friendly bookseller there at lebanesebooks.com, who has sent me several notes.

The difficulty, however, is that soundings were conducted about 1900, which must mean digging.

Amphorae prove buildings were in those Greek harbors?

Columns way out in the harbor do not? Much of the coastline is loose sand and silt now, and I am assuming some columns visible underwater are visible from these portions, though it's not clear where exactly they are. But even columns off the coast in the non-sandy portions are evidence of sinking, not proof, but evidence to be considered.

I agree! Looking for ruins in silt, though (as in the current French expedition), where there was water, does make it possible there was some sinking.

I agree! Ruins, building stones and columns there imply it possibly was not a harbor at the time of those rocks.

Well, here is a similar statement:

Exodus 9:29 "As soon as I go out of the city, I will spread out my hands to the Lord ... there will be hail no longer..."

Which need not mean that there would never be any hail again in Egypt, rather it must mean that this current hailstorm would stop completely. Or as here:

Nehemiah 2:17 Then I said to them ... "Come and let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer be a reproach."

Actually it was, according to Nina (on p. 22): "Renan attributed the final devastation of Tyre to the onslaught of the Arabs at the end of the thirteenth century. From the ruins of the destroyed city [etc.]"

I'm not claiming it re-emerged, though, not those pillars and columns underwater, that people can still see there.

But did Herod's port not sink? Some claim it did, and there is also a fault line running by both regions.

Regards,
Lee

FFT

Not to belabor a point, but 13th century Arabs != Nebuchadnezzar.

Sauron

That would have made you more correct, but you would have still been wrong. They didn't have to search for *EITHER* port.

1. The Sidonian port is still in use - no need to "search for" it.

2. The location of the Egyptian port was well-known from ancient records and excavations - no need to "search for" it.


Earlier records and archaeological evidence.

Wrong. The Egyptian port's location was on the south side of the island, within a very narrow range of space - approximately 500 - 600 yards. The island isn't large in the first place, so the possibilities were VERY restricted. Pinpointing the location is always necessary. But they knew where the port was.

The dropping of columns preceded the silting action.

Or, as the city was being carved up for stone in later years, they could have lost some of the columns in a shipwreck.

Alexander may have dropped them there.

Any number of more plausible and historically sound reasons.

Translation: you <were wrong> when you said:

the columns underwater are well beyond where they think the coast was, so they didn't get there by Alex throwing them into the sea.

Three facts emerge:

1. Jidejian didn't say the blue text above at all - you misrepresented her and her book when you inserted that into the discussion;

2. What's more, you have yet to show "where they think the coast was" in the first place; and finally

3. As for what Alexander did re: the columns in the water - you are reading your own wishful thinking into the text, trying to assert something that you need to prove.

Fortunately you got caught.

I see nothing difficult about it, and you have yet to show any reason *why* it would be difficult.

Spare us your personal disbelief. Your personal incredulity is not evidence, especially considering how wrong you've been on archaeology, marine navigation, geology, ancient warfare....the list goes on and on.

I've owned the book for 8 years now. That's why I've been sitting back laughing, knowing precisely how much you are full of shit.

No difficulty at all. You have forgotten the context of the discussion. You see, the original quotation that started your education on what the archaeological term "soundings" means was way back here:

http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/
The Roman levels of Tyre are of such importance that every effort has been made to preserve them. To determine the exact location of eariler Phoenician and Canaanite levels soundings are being made throughout the excavated areas.

This comment - the one that started it all - refers to soundings made in the present day, not in 1900. And it's obvious that areas other than the Egyptian port are being described here.

Where you got into trouble was when you tried to claim that these modern-day soundings must mean "digging". Wrong. A sounding can be any type of preliminary sampling technique.
http://www.lamp.ac.uk/archanth/staff/bates4.htm

That isn't the question. You don't understand what use the pottery would be?

No, they don't. Been through this before: there are building materials in Boston harbor. By your intellectually broken standard, that proves Boston harbor sunk.

And since I already gave you -- several times now -- five other more likely and historically accurate reasons for the columns to be there, your busted idea of Tyre sinking has no basis.

Yeah, you assume a lot. However your assumption is the same as the point you are trying to prove. So it doesn't work.

Wrong. There is nothing about sand and water that implies sinking.

1. Wrong. See the comment immediately above this one for *why* you are wrong.

2. What rocks?

Not the same.

1. "Built no more" is a different verbal state, and indicates finality. "Hail no longer" does not.

2. In the Exodus passage, they were in the middle of a hailstorm when the statement was being made. The event (or state) is currently in progress, and the Exodus passage indicates that the current state will come to an end. Tyre, on the other hand, was already finished and built when Ezekiel's statement about "built no more" was made.

3. In addition, Ezekiel's "built no more" statement was juxtaposed against the vivid scenery of the destruction of Tyre, to remove the possibility of the destruction being temporary in the minds of Ezekiel's listeners. Your twisted reasoning basically means that Tyre can be rebuilt as many times as one likes, as long as Tyre was abandoned for some period of time without any building activity. So if Tyre doesn't rebuild itself for two weeks - for example -- then the prophecy is fulfilled. Which demonstrates the bankruptcy of your reasoning; Ezekiel's meaning is apparent, no matter how much you try to wiggle out of it.


Fails for the same reasons; i.e., #1, #2 and #3 immediately above.

Wrong. Jidejian says that this is what Renan thought. But then she is only commenting upon Renan's opinion, which is 150 years out of date. Moreover, she also points out:

Renan published in 1864 the resuls of his excavations at Tyre, Sidon, Jebeil (Byblos) and Aradus. Although the scientific method of modern day archaeology was not applied in his day, Mission de Phenicie has preseved interesting information for the historian and archaeologist.

In point of fact, the destruction in 1291 was very bad, but the city was not totally demolished. And as we all know -- and as the many photos have shown -- Tyre was rebuilt, thus invalidating the "built no more" prophecy.

Yes. But ruins in the water do not prove the island sunk.

Your new ridiculous position is that only *part* of the island sunk, but not all of it. But it sunk, without leaving behind any kind of geologic evidence of sinking. What an incredibly precise act of sinking that must have been. :rolling:

Moreover, a partial sinking of the island isn't even what the prophecy says -- so beating this horse to death isn't actually helping you prove the accuracy of prophecy; it's only showing how pathetic your position is.

Back to the fault line again?

1. The fault line has nothing to do with Herod's port sinking, so I don't see why you bring it up because it doesn't support your argument;

2. The presence of the fault line itself is not evidence for Tyre sinking, either. There are building materials in Elliott Bay in Seattle - there's also a fault line there as well. By your twisted logic, Seattle must have sunk underwater.

Casper

Allow me to explain my post, as part seems to have been woven into the discussion, and while I am happy to contribute, I'd like to make my context clear.

As the greater ice age accumulated glaciers to the North, the weight of these glaciers pushed the crust inward, causing a bulge to the south. As the glacier melt, the weight lessens, the impression rises, and the bulge recedes. This is called hydrostatic rebound, and is today why the US East coast seems to be "sinking"; the North American glacial deposits are no lounger compressing the crust, which is rebounding, or "flattening out" as if you poked a ballon with your finger, and then slowly removed it.

So an early writer with plausible long-term observation at his or her disposal could in fact percieve a "sinking" in coastal areas. But we are not out of the woods yet. The actual rebound rate ebbs and flows. By around 13th century CE, the Earth was at its warmest in human history, and the European glacial mass became just a remnant. Subsequent minimums would only see the trend slowed, possibly paused. So Tyre has in fact been "sinking" since the demise of the Neanderthals, and if ever completely inundated, would have never re-emerged. Shoreline drift would have kept it from ever being more than a shoal, and unsuitable for rebuilding.