Sauron

Fortunately, though, ruins and rubble are the same thing.

Not odd at all. Best way to deny a foothold to invaders is to build out to the very limit of the land. In that situation, the shape of the wall is determined by the lay of the land, not by some fascnation with straight-line geometry.

And in that situation, the military readiness of the fort is increased by the unusual design - contrary to your ad hoc claims that such a shape was a militarily bad idea.

Propose all you want. But unless you plan to do a better job of providing supporting evidence this time than you did before, then your new idea won't last any longer than your old one did.

Sven

Sauron: I really applaud your patience! :notworthy

I already gave up here, after Lee tried to lie about increasing earthquakes, was refuted by his own sources - and then refused to admit his lying, but rather brought up some "fulfilled" prophecies.
Interestingly, he claims that the prophecy of Babylon never been rebuilt could be falsified by rebuilding it - in stark contrast to the fact that he refuses to admit that the prophecy about Tyre already was falsified for exactly the same reason.

martini

i cannot believe that i read all of that, as well. my eyes ache. i commend those contributing to the massive amount of multi-disciplinary information in this thread.

one question that i would like to ask: does the last verse still talk about Tyre prophetically?

KJV [21] I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

NRSV 21I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more; though sought for, you will never be found again, says the Lord GOD.

ASV 21I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt no more have any being; though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord Jehovah.

Lee,

maybe i'm being being too simple, but hear me out: isn't the fact that you now have a book on the archaeology of Tyre/Sur/Sor, people arguing over what is where, and debates on who conquered it when indicate that whatever city "the Lord GOD" was speaking about is very much "found again"? i mean, i think that trumps both your argument and that of meforevidence. that part of the prophecy is a hard one to get around. i would compare it to Atlantis. "never to be found again" would be an apropos description of it if it ever did exist. Tyre, on the other hand, seems quite "found".

am i being too literal? is it an allegory that i cannot see?

Sauron

Thanks - although please keep in mind that nobody believes Lee is sincere about wanting an answer here. This is either:

(a) fundie apologetic weaseling - trying every trick in the book to avoid being checkmated by the obvious crushing facts against the literalist viewpoint;

OR

(b) a game played for the sheer enjoyment of it, where not even the topic matters -hell, the instigator could be discussing frickin' baseball scores, as long as he/she felt it would get a "rise" out of some audience on a discussion forum.

I tend to think Lee is (b). He hasn't shown an ounce of sincerity or credibility in this entire debate. He's laughing in his sleeve, watching how many skeptics he can get to jump around and find refutations to the "what if" scenarios that he manufactures by the dozen. Which is why I stopped providing anything like a reference, because his game face fell and it was apparent what he was doing.

But I continue to respond, hoping that the lurkers will see him for what he is. And, hoping that some of the hopeless fundies from the christian groups (ChristianForums, TheologyWeb, etc.) see how ridiculous and lame-brained the attempt to defend the Tyre prophecy is.

Babylon is another entire argument. The evidence against the Babylon prophecy being fulfilled is about 500% more damning than the evidence against the Tyre prophecy -- and that's really saying something, since the evidence against the Tyre prophecy is fairly airtight.

But that's the way it should be; Tyres don't function very well if they aren't airtight, I suppose. :Cheeky:

Sauron

The usual sophistry that the fundie literalists will give you is that "found again" means "exist in its former full glory." Not that it makes much sense that way, since if that is what Ezekiel meant to write, he could have done so. Moreover, there are othe similar passages in Ezekiel where he talks about a particular person or group of people, and he discusses their fall from stature or glory. So obviously Ezekiel knew how to express that concept - had that been the intent behind these verses.

The alternate explanation (even worse) is that the Tyre we have today is not in the same geographic location as the previous Tyre. This is exceptionally lame, because it relies upon the idea that if a city moves a little bit to the left or right, then that technicality makes the prophecy fulfilled.

(Gee. Who knew that the God of the Old Testament was nothing more than a Big Johnny Cochran in The Sky, trying to weasel out of problems by appealing to technicalities..... )

Anyhow, the "wiggle to the left, wiggle to the right" explanation fares especially bad with Tyre, since:

(a) the records don't indicate that the city moved around;
(b) the island is too small to do much moving around anyhow;
(c) as Britannica says, the majority of the Phoenician era ruins lie underneath the modern city, thus proving that the old city and new city occupy the same land;

The "found no more" verses make sense when you realize that, from the persepctive of Ezekiel, he was expecting Nebuchadnezzar to raze Tyre right down to the rocky surface of the island. Ezekiel can be forgiven for that viewpoint; most likely EVERYONE thought the same thing. After all, Nebuchadnezzar had been a victorious conqueror everywhere else, so it was logical to assume he would win against Tyre as well.

But it didn't work out that way.

Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland suburbs, but couldn't take the prize city on the island. A 13-year siege set in, that was only terminated when Tyre agreed to some nominal show of surrender, and Nebuchadnezzar agreed to pretty much leave them alone, except for some tribute payments. Tyre went right on being the Wall Street of the ancient near east, and Nebuchadnezzar went home empty-handed.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Unless the island is a very odd shape? The outline of Tyre is rather extravagant, and would be difficult at best to follow with a wall.

But if I have misunderstood the argument (I think that was what was being said), how have I misunderstood it, and how is it different than what was outlined here?

Well, they might have been thrown there when the Tyrians demolished Alex's first attempt at the causeway, as Diogenes said. Now this view depends on the stones being by the causeway, which it doesn't seem to me, to be what people are saying of them, calling them "ruins of Tyre."

Well, I responded to all five points, now your job is to respond to my responses, not to repeat the points!

Here is a response, thank you, yet why would they only realize they had enough material, after they brought it all the way down the causeway? Surely they would realize this before that point.

A person in a debate can't use one of his opponent's points to make a point himself? That's called debating-judo. But why does your making a point which helps me, invalidate my argument?

But my point depends on the amount of loose sand on the island coast (where did I say on any coastline?), and that is certainly what I meant, about 2/3 of the island coast is indeed labeled "loose sand."

Do we know whether the columns are at the Egyptian or at the Sidonian port, though? But let's say we know of columns in the northern (Sidonian) harbor, I assume that is what you mean. But what do you mean about a column south of the Sidonian port, which is yet underwater? That is my point here, especially if it is viewable from the current shoreline of the harbor, which is far from where they draw the original coastline. So how is my view inconsistent here? I don't claim the coastline was really where they think it was, I am saying part of the island sank, and that is why there are columns, where we expect there would be none.

Then why would these class 4 sites be left for the adventurous to find? Certainly meaning tourists (because the archaeologists have found them already)? If these are officially closed. No, this quote does not call rubble ruins.

Yes, this helps my argument, if rubble is not ruins, and Nina says there are ruins of Tyre underwater.

I meant the whole wall-in-a-straight-line, though! That part of the entire wall of the fortress. That is an advantage to a wall without curves.

"I doubt it"! I used to play that game, growing up, where others would make unlikely assertions, and you would say that to guess which ones were not true. I don't think there are any such links, showing how archaeologists can use sound waves, or light waves, or gravity waves, or ocean waves, to find Phoenician columns underground. "Soundings" doesn't mean that. Period, end of sentence, and why must we belabor this point? Like with chariots and horses being a good way to attack an island fortress, over a causeway.

Actually, my claim is that ruins underwater are such evidence, ruins that are not just individual stones and bricks.

Yes, but these are not scattered planks underwater, they are recognizable as constituting what used to be a whole ship. Now these are not ruins of a city. But by this logic, these ruins are ruins of a ship, and thus ruins of a city, ruins of Tyre, would be recognizable as what used to be a building, what used to be a city. Just what I advance as evidence!

Stone piers do not sink in this way, though. If I may say so, I feel like I'm spending almost all my time in this response to you, clearing underbrush.

People decided to stop all future building, when Ezekiel spoke?!

Renan couldn't tell the present state of Tyre when he came there? He has to be lying, if he was wrong, and Nina doesn't dispute his conclusion.

Well, I meant the current state when he was there, not the current state today!

In and of itself, I agree! With other considerations, such a ruins underwater, it can be evidence.

We need to have it demonstrated that the Tyre prophecy is saying the same thing as the Babylon prophecy, about rebuilding, though.

I applaud your perseverance in reading through this thread! Yes, I agree that Tyre will not be found again, which I hold refers to the people:

Ezekiel 26:20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living.

Now "take your place in the land of the living, make you dwell in the earth below," must refer to people, not to land and buildings, and thus the next statement most probably continues this reference, and refers to the people of Tyre, as well, the Phoenician Tyrians, who are not in the world today, to all appearances.

Well, from "The Sea Traders," by Time-Life books, page 91, we read "Nebuchadnezzar ... in 572 B.C. finally succeeded in winning the second of the three great sieges lost by Tyre (this one lasted 13 years)." On page 100, we read of "the subjugation of the citizens of Tyre by the Babylonians, which indeed came to pass in 572 B.C. That assault by Babylon represents a watershed in Phoenician history. Tyre had a ghastly time at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar II and recovered slowly from the terrible 13-year siege he laid down."

Regards,
Lee

Gullwind

You're displaying your archetectural expertise again. Who says the wall has to match every single little curve of the shoreline? Would you match the exact profile at high tide or low tide?

The wall can be built just above the high tide line with no problems whatsoever, despite your misgivings, and without having to follow each and every curve and bend in the shoreline.

Prester John

And thus did Ezekial prophesize that in an unspecified but long period of time (thousands of years even) a city (by the name of Tyre) would suffer by the hand of god, including that a ship would sink in its harbour and leave building materials underwater as witness to the lords wrath, a port would fall out of use , and it would be attacked by its enemies suffering damage. Witness the power of prophesy, for which other city with walls was captured and had its walls thrown down ? Praise be indeed.

martini

thanks Sauron. i doubt if i could swallow either of those as apologetics given the rather specific nature of this prophecy. it pains me to know that you must have already been on the receiving end of them.
i understand why you might think that, but the verses don't really make sense using "the people of Tyre" instead of Tyre, itself. note the previous verses to 21:

KJV[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

obviously, "the Lord GOD" was not talking about people being covered with water. that would be silly. if some deity was trying to "bring up the deep upon" some folks, i am sure that they would move.

KJV[20] When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

i see three things here that go against your guess:

1: there doesn't seem to be a change of subject. G-d is talking about Tyre through this entire tirade and not the people of Tyre. there are no contextual clues that this has changed
2: if the pit/Pit is Sheol, this was a place in Hebrew culture set well underground. it would be a perfect place for a sunken city to be found if this prophecy of being underwater is to be correct. click for Sheol.
3: the clincher -- people aren't "inhabited". why would "thou be not inhabited" mean anything to a person?

sooooooo...
1: what leads you to think that it refers to people?
2: even if it did, what proof do you offer that not a single person survived and returned to Tyre after any siege?

Jack the Bodiless

I'm not entirely sure about this. At least one person around here appears to be uninhabited.