Sheshonq

1. The question does *not* stand. It was answered, above.

2. The fact that you cannot find any source for this does not mean much. As we've just seen you demonstrate, your skills in research aren't very good.

3. You ar deliberately dodging the question I asked you. How long do you think you can get away with that? Here it is again:

You seem to be confused about what an imperial army could be expected to have, or how resourceful they could be. Do you think that Nebuchadnezzar was unaware that Tyre was on an island, before he left Babylon? Do you believe he was that stupid? Tyre was a well-known seapower all throughout the ancient world; do you think that Babylon didn't realize that boats might be needed to conquer it?

Do you think Nebuchadnezzar would have set out from mighty Babylon, intent on conquering Tyre, march tens of thousands of soldiers, chariots, war engines, footmen, supplies, and allied mercenaries for six months across the desert, and then arrive at Tyre and not be able to launch an attack on it? I can just see it now; Nebuchadnezzar slaps himself on the forehead and says, "D'OH! I forgot to bring a boat! Guess we'll all just pack up and go home."

Your entire argument is busted.

1. There is no evidence of any walls on the old mainland settlement; and even if there were walls, the text says that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy ALL the walls - not just those on the mainland.
2. The siege lasted 18 years; who do you think they were sieging? It certainly wasn't the mainland; that fell quickly.
3. The siege was against the island city, which is attested to by multiple ancient records. Are all the ancient sources lying?
4. If the island city wasn't conquered, then Tyre wasn't conquered. The mainland is not the capital city; it's the suburb.

sugarhitman

Note: The hippodrome is enclosed by a large bare spot right behind the old coastline where it is said Alex used the rubble from the ruins to build his mole. Has it occured to you all that the Drome is built on the site of Old Tyre? It and the ground it is on is now UNESCO land. No building will ever take place on that spot.....Prophecy fulfilled.

Sheshonq

Utter nonsense. The city was on the island, not the mainland. Any siege of Tyre that skipped the main target doesn't even qualify as a siege.

You also haven't explained why a siege lasted 13 years, if it was directed at the mainland suburb. The suburb fell quickly. So what did Nebuchadnezzar do for 13 years? Stare across the water and look at the island?

You haven't spent 30 seconds thinking through the holes in your argument.

sugarhitman

If that was the case spin then indeed why would Tyre even have a villlage or suburb (from critics veiw of the mainland city of Tyre) on a mainland if it was only colonizing islands?

Sheshonq

Already rebutted this argument. Aren't you paying attention?

In point of fact, there are construction projects in Tyre now that are halted because they are occurring on top of ancient Phoenician ruins. Britannica point-blank states that:

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

Which means that the majority of the Phoenician town are underneath the present-day city. Your entire theory just got blasted out of the water. <--- In case you don't understand what that means, your argument about the hippodrome doesn't save you.




Utter failure.

Sheshonq

Who said anything about colonizing?

Why do you think that people have to live either on the island, or the mainland, but not both? Maybe the real estate was cheaper on the mainland. Maybe there were farmers who needed the real estate for agriculture and animals.

The archaeological evidence shows both a mainland suburb as well as an island city. Instead of fighting the archaeological evidence, your time would be better spent examining it.

Edited to add: and since the prophecy indicates that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer *all* of Tyre, his inability to conquer the island means the prophecy failed.

sugarhitman

To makerowner The prediction of the rise and division of Rome was also a prediction of Daniel. Rome did not divide into seperate powers until 476 A.D. One of the major reasons why some believe Daniel to be written in 200 B.C. is because of three Greek words used to describe three instruments. Daniel was a linguist have you not read the "writing on the wall"? Another attempt by critics to disprove prophecy. You will all fail.

makerowner

Aw, you got to him before I did...
Sugarhitman, you've failed to address the clear distinction in Ezekiel 26 between the island city and the mainland:

(emphasis added)

The prophecy unequivocally states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy both the mainland city (the "daughter's in the field") and the island city ("thee"). You've admitted now that Nebuchadnezzar failed to destroy the latter, therefore the prophecy failed.

Sheshonq

There are many reasons why Daniel dates to the 2nd century, including mistakes in the text and historical errors.

1. That doesn't help him, because during the 500s BCE, Greek wasn't prevalent in that part of the world.

2. The writing on the wall event is another historical myth.

All we do is point out the inconsistencies. The prophecy fails all by itself.

sugarhitman

simple makerowner Old Tyre that is the mainland city had a temple and walls, and outside of those walls on the mainland are villedges. And how can the mainland city be called DAUGHTERS IN THE FEILD. Note the plural usage. And did you not know that Old Tyre is the mainland city and New Tyre is the island so then which is the daughter. Old Tyre is neither daughters nor a daughter of New Tyre.