dongiovanni1976x

I only know of Nina Jidejian saying it was a siege of the mainland. Even my Bible says,
As I said earlier, contrary to your opinion that there is “no prima facie case” for besieging the island of Tyre, we have evidence that Shalmanesser V did this very same thing to some success.
In addition to this example there is Sennacherib doing the same thing later...(can't cite it now I am heaind home from work and don't have my books)
Since Dr. Pierre Bikai says,
We have evidence that insular Tyre was the heart of the empire…which in light of Emir Cherab, Director of Antiquities in Lebanon, says,
We have further evidence that the island was hard to control…no one had ever invested the time, resources and energy that Nebuchadnezzar did until his time.
So in light of these scholars and the previous example set by Shalmanessar V, we can see how Dr. Katzenstien and OTHERS, like the Bible commentators I cited earlier, conclude that,
You still find this view unlikely? Why would you think Nebuchadnezzar would waste 13 years besieging Ushu…it did not contain the seat of the king, the palace, the administrative center or the religious center and never withstood a siege in its entire recorded history…

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, if you look in your 1996 book by Nina Jidejian, see if she still acknowledges Emir Maurice Cherab whom I have been citing repeatedly.

Here is his take on the "wall" in question: Note that Dr. Cherab says, "under" just like what I saw when Peter Woodword was standing overlooking the wall from the vantage point of the Roman promenade with the columns we see so many pictures of, as well as the fact that Dr. Cherab says mentions the "two parallel" walls just like Dr. Badawi describes.

Plus I have a photo of this wall in Dr. Cherab's book.

Johnny Skeptic

But I didn't mention every point, just two points, and only regarding the Tyre prophecy. Why won't you answer my questions? I have never been evasive with you. If you have verses in Ezekiel 26 that you like that don't have anything to do with dating and possible alterations, then please mention them.

As I have told you before, even if God exists, and even if he can predict the future, I am not impressed. I would never accept any being who did not have good character, and the God of the Bible does not have good character. I will be happy to debate God's character with you in a new thread if you wish.

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die over thousands of years without letting them know about his existence and will, why in the world do think that he cares in the least about you debating the Bible?

Avatar

What definition if "infallible" are you using? If "infallible" means "without error", then one would expect that there would be no errors or failed prophecies. One failed prophecy (and there are several) puts the kibosh on "infallible". And if "God's word" is fallible, then God is fallible. QED.

Or he's not even there.

dongiovanni1976x

If the prophecy said that Tyre would be lost and never found again and this came true, then v. 14 which says Tyre would never be rebuilt would be a foregone conclusion along with v. 20 which says it will not be inhabited.

The prophecy did say that Tyre would be lost and never found again in verse 21 of chapter 26 in the Book of Ezekiel.
Therefore if the location of Tyre is known today, then the prophecy failed.

"The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur." (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p9)
“Tyre is located at 35° 16' latitude and 33° 11' longitude.” (Bikai, P., The Land of Tyre, in Joukowsky, M., "The Heritage of Tyre" chapter 2, 1992, p13)
Nina Jidejian p4 1969
“Alexander’s causeway had effected a sanding up of what was known in classical texts as the ancient “Sidonian” port of Tyre, the port facing north.”
“The Sidonian port of Tyre is still in use today.”


Thus the prophecy failed.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

How so, though? Their trade was not restricted to the shoreline city, and they were by all accounts, quite rich. And could continue their trade! Except the one customer Neb was sitting on (according to Don’s scenario).

Well no, in Don’s scenario, Neb is staring balefully from the shore, but this is not a war! More like an embargo, and by only one city, though admittedly the nearest one.

It’s possible, I agree, though anything you can do for 13 years, you’ve got a long-term procedure on, I would say!

I would think that is what the people understood, though. Why seek some other settlement on the island, Ezekiel even said there would be fishermen there, spreading their nets. But the reason Tyre was valued was because of their trade, and that would be what people would seek, and what they would miss.

Well, if it’s underwater, it’s rather inaccessible! You can lose your keys in the river, and know pretty much where they are, but they’re still gone. I lost a pair of glasses that way, once. I even touched them on the way down…

Well, what I meant is that points are still being made on both sides, and you seemed to be claiming you had tied the bow here. My continuing discussion would indicate I disagree…

Yet the walls were built at the very edge of the island! So then how does sedimentation and buildup occur, to cover them?

This happens in inland areas, I agree, but not, I think, at the edge of the sea.

But the point I am making would be true? That is all I am after here, let’s do this point by point, for changing to other questions, by way of an answer, is not going to be productive.

And I have addressed this, and my answers are part of this ongoing discussion. You need to address the question of why Jidejian didn’t call the Phoenician ruins at the sea bottom part of the causeway!

It doesn’t! I’m doing this point by point, again. Even if the northern harbor is still in use, how does that account for parts of the fortress having sunk, which may indicate it all sank? So raising other questions as our answers is counter-productive.

And I have said many times that this is the strongest point in your favor. I acknowledge that. And yet discussions must consider many points, and weigh all the evidence, I consider the sunken island of Hercules, and the fault line nearby, a strong point in my favor.

This is not a premise though, this is an observation, as real as Sachara, and your documentary, and all these observations must be considered. If some prominent archaeologist does not mention the walls, while mentioning these very jetties, and at a later date, it would seem the opinion of the archaeologists has changed.

This is an implication, I am certainly not saying that Herod’s port sinking is direct evidence that Tyre sank too. It is indirect evidence, just as Gleason Archer uses Herod’s port sinking, it makes it more probable that the island fortress of Tyre could have sunk too.

Based on all I have been saying throughout this discussion? Such as the point of Herod’s harbor sinking, such as the fault nearby, such as Phoenician ruins at the sea bottom, such as no walls being referred to by archaeologists who are describing the jetties Sachara saw, such as all I am going to say next…

You’re welcome. However, buildings do move around the epicenter of an earthquake, and not just on top of it, and land shifts around them, and do whole continents not move? Along the fault lines, just ask the Appalachians! Mountains, I mean.

Right, my position (until proven otherwise) is that this is not the Sidonian harbor, Jidejian to the contrary, again, this is my weakest point in my argument, I admit that.

Alrighty, so why not the whole island fortress? And then maybe silting built up places along this area, and even reefs and jetties, and then more jetties were put it, because they’re nice to have for ships, and so what we see now is a sunken Egyptian port, and a displaced Sidonian one.

Well, how about if you email them your information? They would no doubt be very interested.

Well no, I only mentioned Sachara possibly being misled by an over-zealous tour guide as one of the options. For everyone else (including Don!) I only say archaeologist’s opinions seem to have changed, and I’m sure we still haven’t heard the final word on excavations of Tyre.

Oh, I thought you said it was in the 60’s or thereabouts. But since the wall was known in the 70’s, again I have an indication that this conclusion is in doubt, when a later archaeologist (not to mention a tourist site, which would have access to archaeologist’s conclusions) do not mention this, while describing just these jetties.

Now that, I think impossible! The editions are different, and so then someone else made all the changes? Nina approved, and the changes are all ill-considered? She has similar books after the first edition on Tyre, on Byblos, Sidon, Beirut, Tripoli (this in 1980), and a 4-volume set on Lebanon (1990-1993), so children’s books are not her focus.

“Ezekiel’s denunciation (especially 27:27) shows how important ancient Tyre was in the eyes of the Hebrew prophet and how varied and enriching was her trade” (1st edition, p. 1). Yet the first page of the 2nd edition has no such quote, there is not even a page 1, the first page with a number is page 7, where the “Acknowledgments” are, and the first text that Nina wrote. In the first edition, on pp. 81 and 82, we have mentions of Antigonus, the only mention in the second edition occurs on page 145, and what is said is completely different, there is no similarity at all between editions, in what is said of this person. These are the first two quotes I found for the first edition, I will stop here.

Which book would that be, may I ask here? I have no doubt that this is a real wall!

No, actually, I hold that people can be correct sometimes, and mistaken at other times. I hold that of myself! I don’t expect all I say about Tyre, or about growing crocuses, to be at every point, true and unchangeable.

I’m going to have to stop here, and resume tomorrow (only it is already tomorrow!).

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Why do you continue to argue secular history that does not have anything whatsoever to do with the issue of divine inspiration? We need to know which verses in Ezekiel 26 indicate divine inspiration to you and why.

dongiovanni1976x

So even though my sources (Dr. Joukowsky in 1992, Dr. Patricia Bikai 1971, 1992, Dr. Badawi 2004, Peter Woodward 2004) all post date your source in 1969 (unless you want to prove your case that Nina investigated all the source material for her updates in 1996 etal) as well as Sachara herself (2003) you still maintain that these historians, archaeologists are wrong or have changed their mind…based upon what?

dongiovanni1976x

Ezekiel said that God would cause the waters of the deep to rise up and cover Tyre, and though people would look for Tyre it would NEVER BE FOUND AGAIN.

THEREFORE, If the location of Tyre is known to this day the prophecy failed.

So Lee, when you say that, you are recognizing the location of Tyre. The fact that this port is in use and its inhabitants have built buildings in and around the surrounding area, including directly on top of the ancient Phoenician fortifications only adds more evidence that the prophecy was a failure.

If you are interested in debating other issues that have arisen as a result of our discussion I would be happy to, but for the sake of THIS thread, the prophecy is a failure by your own account.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, an island sinking is not so easily predicted! If I can make the case here for my first proposal.

Is my position here unclear? I am arguing the island fortress sank, and I don’t believe everything anybody said, and you don’t, either, right? No one is infallible, you yourself have both quoted Jidejian (the Sidonian port!) and contested her (last book was a children’s book?). So do you believe her or not? But the situation is not as simple as that.

Now we are contesting her, eh what? She doesn’t know anything when she does her second edition, or if she provides me with a counterpoint?

Where, may I ask, are you going to find fresh water in a well on an island fort out in the ocean? This besieging the island still has no prima facie case, in my opinion.

Unless Ezekiel meant the coastal city! I do think he did. Then indeed it did transpire, even in your view.

Seiges took a long time in those days, you quoted one of 5 years, Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar not once, but three times! the third time for about two years, so they dug in for a long time, 13 years, though unusual, is not implausible, several years for a siege was not surprising.

Unless you believe Jidejian? And “others”! Who no doubt are listening to archaeologists. Have you sent your information to one of the tourist agencies yet, may I ask? I will be very much impressed if one such site puts up your conclusions, as a result.

I would refer you now to my response to Gullwind on this point.

The alternative is that she is a bad scientist, doing a second edition with no investigation, which I think unlikely. Can you prove that she was indeed so negligent? On what basis do you discount what she said in the second edition? Proof, I would like to see proof that a scientist is playing like they did their research, when they didn’t.

Agreed, quite true.

Regards,
Lee