spin

While sugarhitman continues to make an ass of himself, I just thought someone might be interested in the fact that three Amarna letters (EA 148, EA 149 and EA 150) circa 1300 BCE, written by the king of Tyre, Abi-Milki, all ask the pharaoh to be given control of Ushu (Hosah in Josh 19:29) the city on the coast about 7 kilometers south of Tyre in order to get water. In EA 149 Ushu has been taken by Sidon and Abi-Milki explains that abandoning the place meant "there is no water, there is no wood for us and there is no place to bury the dead". In short, Tyre had been cut off from a secure place on the coast. Understandably there is no place on a small island to bury people.


spin

spin

You are still trying to read Ezekiel as though it were history.

Umm, 13 years with no access to mainland supplies of food and water and only sporadic access through foreign ports is miraculous what sort of torture people put themselves through to survive. It's the longest ancient siege I've read about. Why did they surrender? The obvious reason. Utter exhaustion.

Naaa, you haven't read the critics, just cribbed web stuff.

Umm, you ever hear of a siege? You know, you block all access to resources and the people are starved into submission. It took 13 years with Tyre because it was an island.



You should get yourself a picture of the doors of Balawat which show Tyre was an island fortress.

I need to point you to another failed prophecy about the Medes, Isaiah 13:17-19. The Medes were supposed to be stirred up and destroy Babylon. It never happened. However, the book of Daniel acts as though it did. The Medes were separate from the Persians.

I like this. It's like a sign "I am an ignoramus" proudly worn around the neck of the town simpleton.

For chrissake stop mangling the text. It's a cutter and paster's nightmare. What you have here is simply a deliberately false confused representation of the text.

And will you ever learn to cite properly?

The grammar is against your reading. After talking about the desctruction of Tyre in 26:3-6 the text reads "For thus says Adonai Yahweh, behold I bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar..." Note the "for thus" [KY KH], it is a logical connector linking Nebuchadnezzar to the destruction of Tyre. As god's agent, Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, pull down its walls scrape the island flat...

This is the sort of blunder you get to when you ruin the text.

So, ummm, if Tyre is under the sea, how come it's still there today? (Remember that the Amarna letters show that Tyre was an island in the 13th century BCE.)


spin

sugarhitman

All this proves is that the island and USHU (Palae-Tyrus) was the same kingdom. If it was not, then how can you abandon something that you did not control. This also shows that the people abandoned the coast for the island which proves they were on the coast FIRST. How can you give control of a kingdom to someone else unless you first had that control? This shows without a doubt that the people of this time considered the island a place that was not fit for survival. That they largely lived on the coast. And that the island was populated by the people who lived on the coast FIRST and that they were the same people and not different people as the critics claim. And the island could not survive without the coastel city. And these letters prove that there was a CITY (Note the phrase "city on the coast" thanks spin you've just proved my arguement) on the coast just as did the book of Joshua, as did ancient historians like Menander. This city was detroyed by the nations never again to be found.....the island the NEW city will be buried under the sea....Thanks spin your little research was more then helpful. :wave:

spin

If you want to call Iraq a part of America. It proves that Tyre was the island and Ushu, which became known in much later times as Palai-Tyre (here's a challenge: find any Palai-Tyre reference which pre-dates the earliest reference to Ushu/Usu/Hosah), was used for resources.

There is no argument here. This is no use in your erroneous claim that the mainland town of Ushu was in fact Tyre, when Tyre is clearly separate as seen by the king of Tyre.

Excuse me?? When America abandoned Vietnam, does that prove that the Americans were in Vietnam FIRST??? Are you sound of mind that you should construct such silliness?

The only disagreement here is your unwarranted "kingdom". Ushu was obviously thought of as a possession of Tyre.

Rubbish.

That's why the temples and the palaces and the ports and the walls were all on the island. And obviously the king lived on the island.

False assumption. Americans lived in Vietnam first???

Are the Vietnamese the same people as the Americans???

Would not survive. It lasted 13 years against Nebuchadnezzar.

(Such a tenuous grip on reality.)

There is no doubt that Ushu was a city on the coast. Joshua indicates it. It clearly doesn't indicate that Tyre was. Note that Josh 19:29 mentions Ushu (Hosah) and clearly Hosah and Tyre are two separate locations.

Too bad it wasn't Tyre. The prophecy talks not about Ushu but Tyre.

Hope springs eternal.

You're welcome.


spin

sugarhitman

Thanks to spin the seperation of the mainland and island as two distinct kingdoms has been proven false. these letters here:


"Zimrida has taken Uzu from the servent who has left it. And we have no water, nor wood, nor where we are able to lay the dead."


So the mainland was in fact part of the kingdom of Tyre. When Zimrida took this coastal city, the island was in danger of even surviving for a short period of time. The qoute "the servent has left it" shows that at first the king resided on the coast. He and his people. And without the coastal city they would perish:


EA# 150= "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."


If the mainland city was a seperate kingdom why did it not have a seperate king? Because the Island and the mainland are the same kingdom. The dispute over this city was between the king of Zidon and the King of Tyre. There is no mention of a king of UZU. Why? because there was none. The king of Tyre was also king of this mainland city and the two are one with the mainland city being more important and more ancient. :wave:

spin

Basically.

You are repeating the same bad logic that I indicated you were saying previously. You cannot conclude that Abi-Milki originally resided in Ushu because he was forced to abandon control over it. The same logic applied elsewhere would be equally absurd: America was forced to abandon Vietnam, so America must originally have resided in Vietnam. Same logic. Same absurdity.

That's his whinge.

If Ushu was under the control of Tyre, why should it have a separate king, but then why couldn't it have had a ruler of its own?

That's why Tyre was on the island and Ushu was on the coast. The former had control over the latter.

Yup. King of Tyre.

This is a red herring. Ushu was a possession of Tyre, just as it was a possession of Assyria under Esarhaddon. It says nothing about having, or not having a ruler, but then the question is irrelevant. The king of Tyre was in Tyre complaining to the pharaoh that he'd lost Ushu. sugarhitman is wants to say that Tyre was not Tyre but Ushu, oh and the island.

That's why the king of Tyre sat in his palace on Tyre whinging to pharaoh. Can anyone see why sugarhitman thinks otherwise? Can anyone see on what grounds sugarhitman claims "the mainland city being more important and more ancient" than Tyre? It's a mystery. It sure ain't based on no documents.



spin

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. They were CONFINED to the island....imprisoned. It seems also that Zimrida was not concerned with the island. Indeed the dispute was over the mainland not the island. It was virtually an undesirable piece of real-estate in this time befor Hiram made it into a prized kingdom. The king was basically saying "Give me back Usu or we will die on this miserable island." And the fact that the king of Tyre was also king of Usu (Palae-Tyre) shows that indeed the two are ONE kingdom (there is no mention of a seperate king of USU...EVER and note: just because Usu is named as such does not mean it is seperate from Tyre and vice-versa Just like the city of Jerusalem is not seperate from Israel). Now the suburb myth has been destroyed (thanks to spin) showing that there was a city on the mainland peopled by those who founded also the island. 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:

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. If the mainland was a seperate kingdom from the island, how can a weak island like pre-Hiram island Tyre conquer the mainland city? 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. Palae-Tyre and Island Tyre was seperated by only 3.5 miles and guess what they are the same peoples....Phoenecians! Tyre and Usu are the same kingdom populated by the same peoples. 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

spin

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.

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

Johnny Skeptic

But that has nothing to do with whether or not God is able to predict the future. What you are proposing is that a God exists, and that he wants people to believe that he can predict the future. May I ask how difficult you think it would be for God to convince everyone that he can predict the future?