sugarhitman

"Those who are of the truth shall hear My voice"---Jesus Christ

Sheshonq

Except that comment was aimed at the island city, was was built on a rock.

By filling in the land between them to make one large island.

Said by who?

Or there would have been new land that needed to be enclosed - new land created by the fill-in process.

1. Herodotus also said that the city was founded c 2750 BCE and we know that is wrong. So either (a) Herodotus lied/exaggerated or (b) his sources did. Given that fact, every claim made needs to be independently verified, nothing can be assumed to be true.

2. There was no Medo-Persian empire. Repeating your fallacy won't make it come true.

You have no reason to believe that except that it helps your argument. But as demonstrated, the account of Herodotus contains what are either lies or exaggerations. You'll have to prove the founding of the temple and the city coincided through some other means.

Jack the Bodiless

Now what are you on about?

Nobody is claiming that the walls were built before Hiram!

But you STILL don't understand Ezekiel. "I will make you like the top of a rock" was a play on words, because Ezekiel knew that "Sur" meant "rock". The Tyrians named their island fortress city after the rock on which it was built!

And when will you grasp the fact that there WAS NOT a mainland city called "Old Tyre"?

The Greeks (mistakenly) called it that LATER!

...And, from your ongoing failure to address the "Egypt prophecy": does this mean that you accept this proof that Ezekiel was a false prophet?

If you DO accept this proof: why are you still trying to argue against the failure of his other prophecy at Tyre?

If you do NOT accept this proof: why can't you explain it?

makerowner

sugarhitman, why are you still here? Do you think your lame excuses are going to convince anybody? Even Ezekiel knew his prophecy had failed: "Son of man, Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against it." (Ezek. 29:18 RSV) If Nebuchadrezzar had conquered such a rich city as Tyre, why couldn't he pay his soldiers?

sugarhitman

*The comment was aimed at the mainland. How do I know? Because the spot that the mainland city once occupied is a bare rock.*

By filling in the land between them to make one large island.

*I was talking about before this was done. By Hiram doing this shows there were no walls before this.*

Said by who?

*Read history. And besides why do you think Alex had to mount battering rams on his ships? So that he would be able to attack the walls, because there were no land outside them for land based battering rams.*

Or there would have been new land that needed to be enclosed - new land created by the fill-in process.

*That still means that land would be outside them if they were already up. It had to be done afterwards. Can you cite any history that has Hiram building the walls?*



1. Herodotus also said that the city was founded c 2750 BCE and we know that is wrong. So either (a) Herodotus lied/exaggerated or (b) his sources did.

2. There was no Medo-Persian empire. Repeating your fallacy won't make it come true.

*There is no need for me to argue about this anyone can find this fact in a textbook.*
You have no reason to believe that except that it helps your argument.

*And indeed it does.* :wave:

makerowner

[QUOTE=sugarhitman;5114537]This doesn't look much like a bare rock to me.

Sheshonq

1. No, it isn't. Ah; I see someone has provided you with an aerial view of the city of Tyre. Dance your way out of that one! :rolling:

2. The text talks about Tyre in the midst of the seas - that applies to an island, not a mainland colony.

No, it does not.

I've read far more history than you'll ever read. My question stands: who said that all the land was enclosed inside the walls?

1. Because the city needed to be conquered, and the best parts of the city were behind walls.

2. The situation with the walls in 332 BCE (Alexander's time) proves nothing about the situation with the walls 250 years earlier during the time of Nebuchadnezzar's siege.


You asked for a scenario how it would be possible. I gave you one.

1. Walls exist.
2. New land is created by filling in shallow water.
3. Existing walls need to be expanded to encompass the new land.

Easy.

I don't have to. You're the one with the claim here. I merely offered a scenario.

In addition, lack of mention doesn't mean that no walls existed. You deliberately ignored my previous refutation on that point: the list of projects Hiram engaged in was a bragging list. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of all the island city's features. If the walls didn't need repair, then he wouldn't have spent money to fix them, and hence they wouldn't appear on the list.

Actually, what the textbooks have said supports me, not your fantasy.

The problem is that your reliance on it being correct is based how useful it is to you, not how trustworthy the information is.

Typical fundamentalist tactic. :rolling:

spin

Once again you cite Ezekiel out of context. Here it is:

3 See, I am against you, O Tyre!
I will hurl many nations against you,
as the sea hurls its waves.
4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre
and break down her towers.
I will scrape the soil from her
and make it like the top of a rock.
5 It shall become, in the midst of the sea,
a place for spreading nets.

It is clear that the writer intends the island, as v.5 tells us Tyre is "in the midst of the sea", and you, sugarhitman, admit here that the same phrase in ch.27:32 refers to the island.

There was a larger island, which had the city on it, and a smaller island, which had the temple of Jupiter on it. Josephus cites Dius saying that Hiram:

"joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city"

The temple of Jupiter stood on an island by itself, ie not on the main island. He joined the island to the city. He certainly didn't join it to the mainland. Your interpretation is so shot.


Where exactly did Herodotus say this? Please cite the book and paragraph in Herodotus. (You might like to refer to the original instead of cribbing from the same site.)

Herodotus, who doesn't mention Melqart, does mention Hercules, saying that the priests told him both of the age of the temple and the other information. Herodotus may have been trusting, but you shouldn't be. If you don't understand the problem, go to Giza in Cairo and believe the crap the average tour guide tells you.

Refractory stupidity doesn't make it any less stupidity.

Your belief are ultimately of no relevance here. Only what you can show.

Which others? Dius doesn't mention any temple by name other than the temple of Jupiter Olympius. Menander mentions temples to Jupiter, Hercules and Astarte. Something's wrong with your material there, sugarhitman, as usual.

Once again wrong as you should see from Dius (still Contra Apion 1.17).

Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom. This king 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

Hiram merely joined the island with the temple to the island with the city.

Hey, that's interesting, seeing as they say different things, but tell us, what ancient source do you have for this claim?

No, it doesn't say such a thing at all. This is what it says:

Against these did the king of Assyria send an army, and in a hostile manner overran all Phoenicia, but soon made peace with them all, and returned back; but Sidon, and Arke, and Palai Tyre revolted; and many other cities there were which delivered themselves up to the king of Assyria.

Can you see anything there about a "mainland city"? Of course not. That's just your imagination. (And I won't try to talk about the problems in the Greek.)

Fantasy.

Once again, poor sugarhitman, you're back in the corner, getting ready to get paint on your feet.


spin

Sheshonq

Indeed. It's instrumental to note what Hiram actually did. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:



Hiram joined the southern island to the larger, northern island. So by joining the southern island (the one with the temple of Jupiter) to the city, he was joining it to the northern island.

joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city

Thus proving that the phrase "joined the island to the city" described joining the island of Melqart to an ISLAND CITY.

Stick a fork in it; sugarhitman's argument is done. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

sugarhitman

*Well maybe you should tell spin and other critics to stop qouting parts of Josephus....and ignoring the rest.


Typical skeptimentalist tactics. :wave: