Johnny Skeptic

But no loving, rational God would inspire questionable prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies that discourage dissent. Inspiring questionable prophecies that invite dissent could not possibly benefit God or anyone else. There is not one single prophecy in the Bible that is indisputable in the opinions of the vast majority of people in the world. That would not be the case if the Bible had accurately predicted when and where a number of natural disasters would occur.

The lesson is that if there are not any stated or postulated motives for God's refusal to make indisputable predictions that make sense, he probably does not exist. Logically, no loving, rational God would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or at some time in the future. God has killed more people with parasites than all of the wars in history. Could that have benefitted God or anyone else? Of course not. The fact that the killings were indiscriminate reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since the Bible says that God is loving. There is nothing loving about indiscriminately killing millions of people with parasites. If a God is responsible for indiscriminately killing people, and killing innocent animals, that is good evidence that he is evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempts to create a much better world than the world that he created.

And what may I ask makes it appropriate for God to rule the universe? Since you are not infallible, if a God exists, the one true God might be some other God. If that is the case, without knowing anything about him, is it your position that he has to be good? If so, where is you evidence that that is true? If not, why doesn't he have to be good.

I know that I have gotten off-topic. I do not mind if a moderator decides to send this post to another forum.

spin

Ignorance is not a plea. Sidon was an island at the confluence of two rivers.

No source says that Hiram built this city. Josephus clearly stated that the city was there when Hiram did his enhancements.

It obviously didn't. Look at what Josephus said about raising "the banks of the city" (as quoted in question 4 above). It already existed.

You didn't read the quote, which talked about there already being a city, whose banks he raised in the eastern parts.

When you are clueless of the topography of the coast one can understand you saying that. Look at the coast with Google Earth -- it's called "Sour" today (just move to the coast) --, and try to see where the harbors could have been. Then give me a serious answer. (With a free, easily available package like Google Earth, you have no excuses to remain unlearned in this issue.)

A sidestep is not an answer. It's an evasion. Tyre was besieged three times by the Assyrians. If it was actually ever conquered by the Assyrians, there would have been destruction of its defences. It did not happen. The siege made Tyre capitulate under terms and left it to defy the Assyrians again and again. It is much easier for a land power to conquer cities. Such frequent sieges indicate that the city was never conquered and that was because it was on an island.

While it is easy enough to think of the possibility of Nebuchadnezzar spending 13 years over an island, because he was not set up to deal with islands, land cities were not a great problem to Mesopotamian powers: just look at the conquest of Lachish. There is no hope of supplying a land city for 13 years. The people starve to death after a year. The only sense you can make is that Tyre was not on the land but as Ezekiel says in the midst of the sea, allowing ships to access it.

Plainly the Tyrians were in no position to make agreements after according to you Babylon's successful siege of 13 years.

Yet, in the opening on Tyre, Ezek 26:3-6, only two areas are talked about:

1. the walled city that would end up a place for nets in the midst of the sea, ie the island, and
2. the daughters in the field.

There is nothing else.

Oh, so Ezekiel says "Tyre" and means the land city in ch 26, but it says "Tyre" and means the island in ch 27. That's a coherent way for you to think.

You now accept that the city on the island existed at least from the time of Hiram, though Josephus's citation clearly indicates it existed before that.

1. What makes you think that at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the descendants of Hiram did not live in the city that Hiram built on the island, ie that Tyre was in fact the island?
2. What happened, according to the evidence, to the island city (which you admit existed from the time of Hiram) during and after the siege of Nebuchadnezzar?
3. Was this city on the island referred to in Ezek 26:3-5a as being in the midst of the sea?

First, you don't know when Daniel was written (and if you want to argue a case, please open a thread on the subject). Second, I know that Josephus was preserved by christians, who inserted information about Jesus. Third, Josephus has proven his sources were better for Palestine than Herodotus (who you tried to cite) and that Josephus and his sources have nothing to gain in inventing information about Tyre.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: If the Bible had accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, in your opinion, would the Christian church be larger than it is today?

If the Bible had accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, will you agree with me that it would have been much more difficult for skeptics to discredit Bible prophecy?

Jack the Bodiless

Sugarhitman: why are you still posting here, now that you have admitted that the Tyre prophecy failed (as I pointed out way back, in post #115)?

Indeed, I see you're still admitting this:
As long as you're admitting that at least PART of Tyre was on the island: you LOSE.
Still no explanation of the failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt prophecy" (Ezekiel 29) either...

sugarhitman

the historical accounts of Hiram building the island city by Josephus is derived from the historian Menander. Josephus used him as a source for this account. Menander also says that there was indeed a city on the mainland called Palae Tyrus....Old Tyre. Named so because it was more ancient than the island. All this building by Hiram enlarging the island building the ports the royal palace, proves that Island Tyre was not a major city before his time. Hiram relocated from the mainland to the New city. In the book of Joshua Old Tyre is located on the coast along with Ramah. Its nice that you did not include the fact that Josepus was citing Menander....who says that Old Tyre was a city opposite Island Tyre. This is the part of Tyre demolished by Nebby...as foretold. :wave:

Jack the Bodiless

Nope, there was no city called "Palae Tyrus" on the mainland at that time.

How do we know this?

Because that's a GREEK name!

The Tyrians weren't Greeks. They called their city "Sur" (later referred to by the Greeks as "Tyre"), meaning ROCK.

The mainland settlement was called USHU.

Later Greek names are irrelevant. And the dates of the building of the settlements are irrelevant.

And your attempts to revise history still haven't dealt with the fact that Nebby failed to do what HE was specifically prophesied to do (and with the fact that the mainland settlement wasn't permanently destroyed anyhow). Nor have you dealt with the additional proof that Ezekiel was a false prophet (Egypt).

You've still lost. :wave:

sugarhitman

Palae Tyrus simply means Old Tyre. Old Tyre is an English phrase used to interpret the greek phrase, while the greek phrase is used to interpret the Tyrian phrase. Just as Tyre means sur in Greek a non-Tyrian interpretation but yet widely accepted.Your argument makes no sense And remember Menander used the Tyrian archives to write his history.Pliny, Strabo and other sources indeed say that Old Tyre existed. And concerning all the streets being tread by Nebby...that is all the streets of the mainland. And by the way did not Nebby kill the king of Tyre after his siege? This certainly shows that Tyre was not victorious....and neither are you. :wave:

spin

If that really were the name (see below), you wouldn't have a clue as to why Menander's text was called that. Now admit it.

Here is the text I quoted from Contra Apion 1.17 with the attribution from Josephus:

Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness, Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:— (113) “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, and adorned that temple with donations of gold.

Umm, you notice no Menander? Strange that, isn't it? For some reason Josephus supplies the name Dius. Oops, well, hey, Menander says something in the next paragraph, some rather interesting information. Here it is:

And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness. This Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians, under everyone of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much pains to learn their history out of their own records. (117) Now, when he was writing about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hiram, and says thus:—“ Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom; he lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. (118) He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter’s temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones: besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. (119) He first built Hercules’ temple, in the month of Peritios, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned home.

Notice first that the text Josephus uses from Menander he refers to as the Acts (that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians).

Then notice that when Hiram put the pillar in the Jupiter temple, the temple was already standing (on an island, Dius tells us) and when he built the new temples, he first pulled down the old ones. This means Hiram simply rebuilt on the island. The city was plainly already there. Now you have to justify the silliness of having invented an Old Tyre on the mainland when all the major buildings of Tyre were already on the island before Hiram.

It becomes entertaining to see how big a corner you paint yourself into with each new preposterous assertion. You now plainly admit that the island was built up at the time of Hiram, so you have a good match with the city "in the midst of the sea", Ezek 26:5, phrase that you admit describes the island of Tyre in 27:32. The only person you convince with this sorry game of hopscotch is yourself.

There were three questions in the last post:

1. What makes you think that at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the descendants of Hiram did not live in the city that Hiram built on the island, ie that Tyre was in fact the island?
2. What happened, according to the evidence, to the island city (which you admit existed from the time of Hiram) during and after the siege of Nebuchadnezzar?
3. Was this city on the island referred to in Ezek 26:3-5a as being in the midst of the sea?

Got any answers yet?


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Incorrect. "Paleotyrus" isn't Greek for "Ushu".

You're basing this argument on a name invented by others. If George W. Bush decided to call Miami "Old Havana", does this give him a territorial claim on Cuba's Havana?
Nope, still confused. "Tyre" doesn't mean anything in Greek, it isn't a "translation". It's a Greek pronounciation/spelling of "Sur", which is still the Phoenician word for "rock". Similarly, the English word "Moscow" isn't a translation, it's an alternative pronounciation/spelling of a Russian name (the Russians don't call the city "Moscow").
Nope, incorrect. ALL the streets, not SOME. Tyre was on the ISLAND (that's why Alexander attacked TYRE on the ISLAND). The Tyrians didn't refer to the mainland as "Old Tyre", and they definitely wouldn't have regarded their island as NOT a part of Tyre!
Where did you get that notion??? The agreement was that the king would become a hostage as part of the compromise peace with Nebby (this hostage-taking was a common custom, and was quite advantageous for the hostage, who was still treated as royalty). The Tyrians who actually ran the city were OK with it. It's possible that Nebby might eventually kill the king (if the Tyrians didn't abide by the terms of the agreement), but the siege didn't end because Nebby somehow managed to kill the king.

Still nothing to say about Ezekiel's obviously-failed "Egypt prophecy"?

Random Evil Guy

based on what? is this what you'd call a "bare rock":