Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
When the photograph clearly shows that the (former) island is exactly the same shape as the maps of Tyre in Alexander's day, and clearly show the ancient ruins and the northern harbor: yes, it does prove this.
Others COULD have been wrong, but were not (because Tyre still exists). Tyre COULD have sank, but did not (because Tyre still exists). Jerusalem COULD have been destroyed by a meteorite, but was not (because Jerusalem still exists). John Kerry COULD have won the last Presiential election, but did not (because Bush won instead). Earth COULD have been conquered by aliens from Alpha Centauri last year, but was not (because we would have noticed).
By toppling off the quayside, probably. The same fate that befell the Great Lighthouse.
So you admit that you have no interest in determining truth from falsehood? The only reason you argue that the harbor still exists is because you'd be "done for" otherwise?
Just to be clear about this:

Suppose that an archaeologist flies into JFK and takes a taxi into New York. He has already been informed that building materials have been discovered offshore (from a sunken barge or whatever). He goes to Ground Zero, does some digging, and fails to find evidence of an earlier structure on the WTC site...

...Then he will conclude that Manhattan "probably sank", figure out that he is underwater, and drown? What about the taxi driver, if he's still nearby? Will HE make the same conclusion and drown if he sees the archaeologist drown?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I'm heading out of town, to return (physically and virtually) on Tuesday, so I will post some more then, the good Lord willing...

Regards,
Lee <- off to Texas (go Spurs!)

Sauron

Already answered at least once before, in the thread where you got your butt kicked on this same topic:


1. They could be rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
2. They could be part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
3. Or, rubble from another military event.
4. It could be the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
5. It may even be that the rubble represents an ancient port/dock that fell out of use and was simply allowed to fall into the sea over which it was positioned.

We know that each of these items 1-5 occurred during the history of Tyre. We have zero evidence for Tyre sinking. On that basis alone, ANY of these explanations is more plausible than your last-grasp attempt at rescuing Ezekiel's prophecy from the trash bin.

If you don't know the answer, then maybe you should investigate for yourself? Or are you still trying to get other people to run around and do homework for you?

We've been here before as well, lee.

1. There are pillars at the bottom of Lake Washington in Seattle. By your busted argument, that means Seattle must have sunk.

2. There are items from the Revolutionary war in Boston harbor. By your hopeless logic, that means Boston has sunk.

3. There are items from the Viking age found in the waters off Denmark, Norway, England and Ireland. By your pathetic viewpoint, Western Europe must have sunk.

Is the point clear? Of course it is.
Are you avoiding it anyhow? Yes you are.

No it does not.

It isn't supposed to. It's Tyre, not Florida.

Edited to add: it never ceases to amaze me how bible literalists can have their arguments shot down, slink away in defeat, and then show up a few weeks/months later and re-post the same arguments all over again, deliberately ignoring their previous defeats.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yet middleeast.com says "Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years. Tyre stood firm, but it was probable that at this time the residents of the mainland city abandoned it for the safety of the island."

Dr. Jedejian says this too, "The siege of Tyre in which the city withstood Nebuchadnezzar's armies for thirteen years (585-572 B.C.) ... One may conclude that Nebuchadnezzar, finding himself without a fleet and unable to take the island of Tyre to which the inhabitants of Palaetyrus no doubt had fled with whatever they could carry, withdrew his forces. Before he lifted the siege he received the nominal submission of the city and the surrender of a number of her nobles." ("Tyre through the Ages," pp. 103-104).

Indeed, "Cities of the Biblical World" says the siege was a siege of the mainland: "In 585 BCE the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the citadel in the sea...", so it seems there is a divergence of opinions here. Yet in either case, this allows the conclusion that all of Eze. 26:8-13 was fulfilled with regard to the mainland city, for Ezekiel did not say the mainland would be besieged 13 years, only that it would be conquered, with horses marching through, and its walls knocked down.

Do you have evidence that the mainland city had no walls or towers? That would be rather imprudent of them, I would think.

Because this verse seems to include all the description of the horses marching through the streets, and the fine houses being demolished:

Ezekiel 26:8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword...

Which then would mean the streets and houses of Ushu.

Though Babylon cannot very reasonably be called many nations:

Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you--

Ezekiel 38:23 And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

This would be only a nation like the Babylonians? No, many nations, in the plain sense, is clearly meant. And again, Scripture does not seem to restrict itself to making only unlikely prophecies. Yet a likely prophecy may not turn out, remember Barbaro just recently in the Preakness.

Well, that's a good point! I still do wonder why the tourist web sites don't mention this, the very place Alex made his breach in the attack! People would probably line up to see that, if even from a boat offshore. Jidejian also mentions that the breaches were extensive, not small, and also that they made bridges over the walls from their boats, in the fall of the fortress on the island.

And I wonder why Jidejian (in "Tyre through the Ages" © 1996) makes no mention of this. I see coins, I see a sculpture of part of the temple, I see pictures of Roman ruins in the Roman part, but no walls of Tyre.

But the Muslims came much later! Yes, they stand on what is now the peninsula of Tyre, but that does not prove that no part of Tyre ever sank.

Do we have maps from Alexander's day? I know of none, so far as I have seen.

You are assuming your conclusion, though, I could just as well say "You are wrong because the island does not exist." But what does that prove?

And you have still not answered my question about the island that you said, did sink nearby.

Oops, Jidejian mentions "a mass of granite columns and stone blocks", not marble columns. But how did no granite columns and stone blocks remain above water, may I ask? They all toppled? That seems unlikely.

No, I'm saying there are two interpretations here, which seem both defensible. I don't know which one is most likely to be true, does that mean I have no interest in determining truth? No, I'm discussing further, in order to find this out.

But I meant no American ruins whatsoever, above-ground, that part got left out of both your counter-examples!

You know that rubble was tossed into the sea? That Alex tossed materials into the sea during his siege? That another military event had this happen? That the Romans threw granite columns into the sea to make room for other buildings? That the port (with stones and granite columns!) fell into the sea through disuse?

You know a lot!

Herod's port sank! The island of Hercules, it seems, sank nearby. So this is zero evidence?

Well, the person who makes the claim should be prepared to defend it. Sorry, that's the way such discussions are done. Jack was claiming "a lot of stuff was strewn over the bottom of the bay," and I am asking him what that was, this is not unreasonable.

But what I meant was that Florida has a shape more like what we would expect to see at Tyre, if the skeptics are correct.

By the way, I found out what soundings means, it does not mean using sound waves, as Sauron had argued previously. "In 1903 excavations were resumed by the curator of the Imperial Museum at Constantinople who made several soundings and near Tell e-Ma'shouk came across sepulchers of the Roman period." ("Tyre through the Ages", p. 15)

So this must mean they dug in various places.

Regards,
Lee

lee_merrill

Oops, I meant "... says the siege was a siege of the island" here.

Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
If one person says the island DID sink, and everybody else says that it's still there: it's probably still there. And we can resolve any lingering doubt by consulting PHOTOGRAPHS of the island, and the testimony of those who LIVE THERE, and so forth.

The "island that sank nearby" doesn't change the fact that TYRE did not sink.
They are NOT "both defensible", because the island still exists.
Irrelevant. You are suggesting that a future archaeologist, standing on THE ISLAND OF MANHATTAN, might conclude (purely from a lack of still-standing structures above ground) that THE ISLAND OF MANHATTAN, (which he's still STANDING ON) is "underwater".

I presume the archaeologist's name is "Merrill".
Why should Tyre change shape to look like Florida? You are making even LESS sense than usual.

We still have Tyre's northen port on the northern end of the island, Tyre's (silted-up) southern port on the southern end of the island, plenty of land between the two, and the foundations of Tyre's perimeter wall. If "part" of the island sank: what part? It must have been a rather small part. Gleason Archer's testimony is obviously bunk.

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, you and Jack seem to be debating whether the island sank, I was under the impression that you thought that Tyre broke off and sunk never to be found again. But if you say that,

Then you are agreeing that the island of Tyre (which is presently connected to Alexander’s silted up causeway) is currently above sea level and has inhabitants. Because these Mosques I mentioned are located in Section #7 which Dr. Bikai was excavating - which was on teh ancient island and pointed out in the photos I posted. This is in direct contradiction with the prophecy that said the city would never be found again and likewise never inhabited again.


This is a travel website. I do not think their budget is in the habit of employing doctors of archaeology. Another way of reading this is to think “island” whenever you see the noun “Tyre”. E.g. “Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years. But Tyre stood firm since it was surrounded by water and kept getting re-supplied, but it was probable that at this time the residents of the mainland city of Ushu abandoned it for the safety of the island city that had never been successfully taken." Nebuchadnezzar was most likely hoping to blockade Tyre by guarding Ushu where Tyre got its fresh water from...seems to depend on how you read it, but either way we must remember that this is just a tourist website, not a reputable scholarly journal etc.

Lee, just read this like I asked you to the tourist site. Jidejian is saying Nebuchadnezzar besiged Tyre (the island) by occupying Ushu for 13 years. Finding himself unable to take Tyre he withdrew. This seems rather simple.

What kind of physical evidence would I need to demonstrate that something doesn’t exist? All I can do is speculate on the fact that Ushu never withstood a siege in recorded history and all of the historians I have cited from Pierre Bikai, Patricia Bikai, H.J. Katzenstein and Maurice Cherab who state that when the city was attacked they “fled to Tyre for safety”. So I believe the burden is upon you to demonstrate evidence for this fortified mainland city.

Nina Jidejian was not a part of the excavation of Tyre with the Bikai’s. Anyone wanting to do research on Tyre must consult those who have excavated there and the most recently published articles on the excavations are from Pierre and Patricia- sadly from the seventies. Nina published her book in 1969 and was not a part of this excavation and did no updates to her later publications. The film where Mr. Woodward is standing in the breached wall is from 2004- and more excavating has been done but very little has been published. This is what prompted Martha Joukowsky of Brown University to put together “The Heritage of Tyre” in 1992. It is committed to the preservation of the sites in Tyre and for getting increased funding to do more excavations there that are properly PUBLISHED so others can share in the info – and also to cut down on the rampant looting of sites.

Alexander the Great was never specified in the prophecy. And I assume we agree, that if something is not specified then it is unspecific. Therefore if you want to use Alexander in support of your argument then you must acknowledge that this prophecy is not “specific” but rather unspecific. In addition, due to the length of time necessary for Alexander and the Mamelukes to “fulfill your theory”, you stifle this prophecy’s strength. This is because in history it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a city will never be attacked, lose prominence or suffer other difficulties and it is this fact makes the prophecy significant because it is made during the height of Tyre’s prominence. Therefore you are rendering Ezekiel’s prophecy insignificant. Pile on top of these two points is the fact that Tyre still stands to this day, which renders the prophecy unfulfilled. So what are we left with: CONTRARY TO WHAT LEE MERRILL WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, EZEKIEL’S PROPHECY REGARDING TYRE IS UNSPECIFIC, INSIGNIFICANT AND WAS NEVER FULFILLED.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I agree its more probable, yet the alternative is probable enough (I am arguing) to not be implausible.

Then a photograph of a place called Tyre proves that is where Tyre was? The opinions of people living there? Paris, Missouri, would not determine for us where Paris is, now would it?

Why is that sunken island not evidence that the part where the island fortress was, might have sunk, though?

No, I'm suggesting that underwater ruins, with no underground ruins that you can find by digging, would indicate that Manhatten sank.

My point is different, maybe it looked more typical, like Florida, and then the island fortress sank, thus the present shape.

Maybe it was, I don't know, I do have to require that the archaeologists are mistaken about the location of the harbors, which is admittedly the most difficult part of my argument for the first view I have proposed.

Oops, no, by "the peninsula of Tyre" I mean whatever is left of Tyre after the island sank. I really need three names, "ancient fortress Tyre," "mainland Tyre" and "Tyre today."

What, they can't look this up? Surely they would be very interested in such discoveries, and would make much noise about them if they knew of them, and it would also seem that all you have mentioned wasn't done in a corner.

Why on earth did they give in, then? It would seem they could keep this up indefinitely, for Neb had no navy to speak of.

That's a good point, and yet I wonder how they got fresh water for 13 years, and then finally could apparently get no more.

They actually capitulated, though, and allowed some degree of Babylonian rule.

You did seem to be making this very claim, I do think it more likely that Neb attacked the mainland city, and that they had walls and towers to defend it. If you disagree, then I shall again ask for the reasons!

Some sources (see above) would say the 13-year siege was of Ushu, though, which I think more probable.

Right, after they saw that the mainland city could hold out no longer. This statement fits with both your view and mine.

She did, actually, the second edition is copyright 1996.

It seems he made some mistakes in points of fact, though, that the Macedonians did not pour through a small breach, they even used bridges over the walls from their boats, and the breaches were (some do say) substantial.

"The section of the defenses where Alexander had chosen to take personal command was, in fact, the first to fall ... and the northern harbor, which was not protected by booms, presented no difficulty to the Cyprians. They sailed straight in and quickly gained control of that portion of the town" (Arrian, "The Campaigns of Alexander", pp. 141-142).

Well, fine, so let's evaluate all the different statements we find, as best we can...

Right, I agree that this prophecy does not call Alexander by name, thus it is not that specific.

Must I repeat myself again?

"Scripture does not seem to restrict itself to making only unlikely prophecies."

That is the point at issue though, is it not? You cannot make your conclusion your argument. Well, you can, but I shall not be very much convinced...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: You still want to debate the Tyre prophecy. Good, that is one of my favorite debate topics. You can start with reasonably proving that the prophecy was written before the events, and that the version that we have today is the same as the original version. Then you can tell us what about the prophecy indicates to you that it was divinely inspired.

bfniii

you are assuming that the criticisms of the prophecy are valid or that they have quality. we may never have enough information in the form of archeaological evidence or historical evidence to convince every single person one way or the other. it's a matter of degree. the information that exists causes some people to believe it, some not and some to remain undecided.