Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lee_merrill · 06-16-2005, 07:29 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Gullwind: Would you match the exact profile at high tide or low tide?

That's a good point, I hadn't considered that, I'm not sure of the range of the tides at Tyre, or whether there would be a lot of variation, or whether the shoreline has a steep slope to it. I did read that the walls went to the shore, so I assume they did account for those tides, if they did this!

Quote:

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.

But the shoreline is quite wavy today, and also where they draw the coastline as they thought it was back then. Any substantial beachhead is a beachhead, so a thorough job would have to be done, on all sides, to carry this off, which would be especially difficult if the coast went back and forth, which would make it less defensible in some ways, as well as more defensibility in others, so it doesn't seem to be a clear win.

Quote:

John: Witness the power of prophesy, for which other city with walls was captured and had its walls thrown down ?

Well, I wasn't claiming these aspects were unlikely! Now if Neb was to be involved, that reduces the probability a good bit, and if "built no more" is about the city, and "never return," about the people, that reduces it as well.

Quote:

Martini: "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.

I agree, I would say that this refers to prominent parts of the construction of Tyre, to ports and walls and citadels.

Quote:

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.

Doesn't "bring you down to the people of long ago" imply people here, though, not a city?

"I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit," surely we would think first of people here, and not take "those who go down" as other cities, going into Sheol.

Quote:

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.

It's again possible, yet why would there be a further statement that "you will sought, but will not be found," if this was the interpretation? Surely people wouldn't think they could look for geographical cities in Sheol.

Quote:

the clincher -- people aren't "inhabited". why would "thou be not inhabited" mean anything to a person?

Well, some translations read "not return" or "not have respect" instead of "be not inhabited" here in verse 20, so the KJV interpretation here is not sure and certain.

Regards,
Lee

MadMez · 06-16-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

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.

Regards,
Lee

Hi Lee,

I've been following along here with interest. A visit to the doc's sat me in front of a copy of the National Geographic, which would seem to contradict the above. It was the October 2004 edition and states in the article "who Were The Phoenicians?" on page 48, that the present-day Lebanese share a genetic identity going back thousands of years. As some of the sampling was done at a wharf in Tyre (see page 34) then these people are the direct descendants of those self same Phoenician Tyrians, no?

Here's a link to an excerpt...

"Who Were The Phoenicians?" National Geographic

Prester John · 06-17-2005, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merill

Well, I wasn't claiming these aspects were unlikely! Now if Neb was to be involved, that reduces the probability a good bit, and if "built no more" is about the city, and "never return," about the people, that reduces it as well.

I'm wondering if the bit in the OT about turning to pillars of salt really means they had a bit of a sweat on.

lee_merrill · 06-17-2005, 06:57 PM

Hi Madmez,

Well, this is interesting...

"Now he and Zalloua hope to use a different alphabet, the molecular letters of DNA, to exhume these ghosts."

Sounds like the results are mainly future at this point though, if I may say so, but if you find (fish up? speaking of Phoenicians) some further information on this, I would be glad to hear it...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k · 06-17-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi Madmez,

Well, this is interesting...

"Now he and Zalloua hope to use a different alphabet, the molecular letters of DNA, to exhume these ghosts."

Sounds like the results are mainly future at this point though, if I may say so, but if you find (fish up? speaking of Phoenicians) some further information on this, I would be glad to hear it...

Regards,
Lee

You read a link! But you missed the online extra. They are doing a lot more work, but the work has been done - which is why they published the story in national geographic (I'll have to try to look this up online when I do research tomorrow). The relevant part:

Quote:

Supported by a grant from National Geographic's Committee for Research and Exploration, the scientists collected blood samples from men living in the Middle East, North Africa, southern Spain, and Malta, places the Phoenicians are known to have settled and traded. Starting with between 500 and 1,000 well-typed samples, they began looking at the Y chromosome, the piece of DNA that traces a purely male line of descent. The goal was to answer two questions: What was the impact of a group the ancient Egyptians referred to as the Sea Peoples, who apparently arrived in the Levant region about 1200 B.C. just before the Phoenician culture began to flower and expand? And can we use genetics to trace the expansion of the Phoenician empire? What the study has revealed so far, detailed in "Who Were the Phoenicians?" in the October issue of National Geographic, is compelling.

"We're not seeing a significant genetic influence from elsewhere on the coastal population in what was the Levant region," says Wells. "The people are very similar to the groups we see inland in Syria and Jordan, for example, suggesting that there wasn't a huge influx of Sea Peoples or others from outside the area. A cultural shift occurred but not a genetic one. Today's Lebanese, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites before them are all the same people."

Wells and Zalloua are finding similar results among samples taken in Tunisia, site of ancient Carthage and the largest of the Phoenician colonies. "Less than 20 percent of the genetic lineages found could have come out of the Middle East," Wells continues. "They're showing the markers of aboriginal North Africans. That means the Phoenicians moved into this area and, like the Sea Peoples, had more of a cultural impact than a genetic one."

As DNA samples continue to be analyzed, more revelations are surfacing. "We've just received data that more than half of the Y chromosome lineages that we see in today's Maltese population could have come in with the Phoenicians," Wells says. "That's a significant genetic impact. But why?" At this point he can only speculate. "Perhaps the population on Malta wasn't as dense. Perhaps when the Phoenicians settled, they killed off the existing population, and their own descendants became today's Maltese. Maybe the islands never had that many people, and shiploads of Phoenicians literally moved in and swamped the local population. We don't know for sure, but the results are consistent with a settlement of people from the Levant within the past 2,000 years, and that points to the Phoenicians."

During the next few years, Wells and Zalloua plan to expand the sample size in the Middle East, southern Spain, and northern Africa. "I'm particularly interested in the Phoenician impact on Africa," Wells says. "We know that Phoenicians—to a certain extent—controlled the trans-Saharan trade routes from their center of Carthage. They also navigated through the Strait of Gibraltar and moved around western Africa. But how far south did they get? And did they leave a genetic trail?" The search continues.

Sauron · 06-18-2005, 05:56 PM

Folks, this is coming in two posts.

This post, the first one, deconstructs lee merrill's what-if claims and bad logic.

The second post refutes his (one) attempt at using a source.

Now without further ado...

-------------

Quote:

Unless the island is a very odd shape?

Why should that matter? The previous example of Fort Ticonderoga shows a VERY odd shape: a pentagram. Didn't seem to slow them down when they decided to build a wall, though.

Quote:

The outline of Tyre is rather extravagant, and would be difficult at best to follow with a wall.

1. Tyre is not oddly shaped. If you think it is, then demonstrate that claim, using other islands as some kind of normative reference group, and don't forget to provide a measurement scale for "oddly shaped".

2. Difficult to follow with a wall? My, what an interesting claim. Let's see the proof for it. So far, there is no evidence that the shape of Tyre presents any difficulties whatsoever.

Quote:

A will do X, B will do X, or A implies X, B implies X, so then A equals B? That's not good logic...

Ezekiel equated them. Your lame attempt at logic ignores the nature of two things being equated.

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?

Ah. Starting the games so early in your response?

I've already answered that question. Repeat:

"nations" cannot continue after Nebuchadnezzar, unless Nebuchadnezzar himself continues after that point. But that didn't happen; Nebuchadnezzar did not make any further attacks on Tyre after the 13 year siege.

You are ignoring the nature of two things being the same thing - being equated.

Quote:

Nonsense. My conclusion is a set of two facts:

(1)Alexander did *indeed* built the causeway, and
(2) he obviously did *not* use the stones you are referring to, since they are in the water and not in present in the causeway.

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."

1. As indicated before, no one cares what you think is reasonable or plausible. You have no credibility in this debate. So the fact that you don't find something convincing carries no weight here.

2. Ruins and rubble are the same thing, as shown before.

Quote:

You've tried to focus in on only the 2nd item above - but there are four others.

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

No, you did not respond to all five points.

1. You tossed out what-if scenarios.
2. I (and others) easily shot them down.
3. Thus, you were left with zero valid rebuttals.
4. Which means the other four original scenarios I provided are still more plausible than your "Tyre sunk" scenario.

So since your previous responses were dead on arrival, when do you plan to respond to those four scenarios I presented? Hmm?

Quote:

Maybe he had too much material, and once he finished the causeway he hastily chucked the surplus into the water to clear the causeway for his troops.

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?

Perhaps because:

* civil engineering wasn't an exact science in 330 BC.;
* in the haste of battle they might not measure as accurately as they would otherwise;
* they might have decided to cut corners and not widen the causeway sa originally planned, in order to preserve a military advantage or attack under a finite window of opportunity that was quickly closing;
* etc.

The bottom line here, lee, is you asked for a rationale why the material would be tossed away. I provided several such rationales - in spite of the fact that anyone with a nickel's worth of honesty could have easily thought of several reasons.

Now you need to explain why you insist this is not possible.

Quote:

Surely they would realize this before that point.

You're just squirming again.

Quote:

The current sand line is the *result* of silting up from the causeway. The current sand line didn't exist in Alexander's time.

My point depends on what you said being true, though. I agree!

Which means your line of argument based on that point is a dead-end.

A person in a debate can't use one of his opponent's points to make a point himself?

That isn't what just happened in the exchange above.

It invalidates your argument because you got the chronology wrong again, and didn't realize that the sand line didn't exist in Alexander's time.

When I pointed out that the sand line you were talking about didn't exist in 330 BC when Alexander attacked, that totally pulled the rug out from underneath your position, because your argument was based upon that sand line being there when Alexander was sieging Tyre.

You agreed with my point when I said the above, thus your line of argument based on the *contrary* viewpoint is dead. Q.E.D.

Quote:

That's called debating-judo.

In your case, it's called hitting yourself in the head with nunchucks.

Quote:

But why does your making a point which helps me, invalidate my argument?

1. The point does not help you; it CONTRADICTS you.

2. It invalidates your argument because you got the chronology wrong again, and didn't realize that the sand line didn't exist in Alexander's time.

Quote:

But my point depends on the amount of loose sand on the island coast

That isn't the same as the sand line.

Quote:

In the "pre-sinking" era of Tyre, the columns are on the wrong side of the port. They should be north of the port, not south of it. Unless you want to explain why the Tyrians would have created a port *on dry land* between the island and the columns.

Do we know whether the columns are at the Egyptian or at the Sidonian port, though?

Yeah, we do. The columns that you have been fixated on for weeks are in the waters of the southern (Egyptian) port.

Your move.

Quote:

"Ruins are categorized on a four-point scale. Class 1 contains sites that are widely known, Henderson says: "We readily disclose them to the public; they have a long history of tourist use." Class 4 sites are so fragile they’re officially closed to visitation. "We withhold information about them from the public, and even from park staff. If people find them on their own, that’s fine," Henderson says. Only Class 1 and Class 2 sites are depicted in park brochures and trail guides, he says."

The unedited paragraph says it all. These unimpressive rubble mounds are the class 4 ruins that are officially closed to the public, but can be found by the adventurous.
Then why would these class 4 sites be left for the adventurous to find?

Who cares? Who gives a shit why?

This isn't a debate over whether the US Park Service is acting properly. It's showing you some inconvenient evidence proving that rubble is a kind of ruins.

Quote:

Certainly meaning tourists (because the archaeologists have found them already)? If these are officially closed. No, this quote does not call rubble ruins.

Yes, it does, in the text above. Class 4 ruins are plainly called rubble. Only a deliberate liar would say otherwise.

Quote:

I also pointed out Jidejian is counting the fact that the Egyptian port is part of the "ruins" of Tyre. Much of the Egyptian port is either underwater, or mired in muck or sand.

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

However, rubble is the same thing as ruins, so it does not help your argument.

Quote:

get out a crayon and some paper and draw a picture of a fort. Then tell me if you can see the whole wall from any point on the wall.

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.

1. That isn't what you said, however. And if you were debating here honestly, you would see that the truth you just discovered here (forts *must* have walls that bend) negates your home-made claim that straight line walls are superior.

2. You still have not demonstrated any such advantage to a straight-line wall, by the way. Do you plan to climb off your lazy ass and get around to that, anytime soon? Or maybe you think we're just going to accept your "expertise" in ancient military warfare? :rolling:

3. Many forts have bends in them - that is dictated by the lay of the land. No choice.

4. Gullwind already refuted your home-made assertion about straight walls anyhow. I could add several others to the example of Ticonderoga. And those lurking in the audience will remember the shape of medieval castles in Europe, too, as another set of contrary examples...think about the water....what shape was it in.....

5. You're also trying to have it both ways. Earlier you tried to claim that Tyre was a fort with walls "out to the seas". Now you're trying to say that such construction wouldn't be possible. Which one is your position, lee? Did Tyre have walls out to the edge of the buildable land (the seas)? Or didn't it? Can you make up your mind, and stick to one position for us?

[bugs bunny]
what a maroon.
[/bugs bunny]

Quote:

I'm still waiting for the reposting of those links! I don't remember these links, I must say...

They are in the thread, so there is no need to repost them. In fact, they were posted more than once.

"I doubt it"! I used to play that game, growing up,

Apparently you are still playing games, and are not grown up.

The links are in the thread - twice - proving what I said and refuting your post. The fact that you're too lazy or too scared to read them changes nothing; I'm not going to coddle your intellectual dishonesty. Go find them.

Quote:

You tried to claim that rubble in the water proved (or is evidence) that a city sunk. I provided you with another example of rubble in the water. Therefore by your crippled logic, Boston also sunk.

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

1. Rubble and ruins are the same thing.

2. Girders perform the same function in modern civilization that pillars and columns were to ancient civilization. There are girders in Boston harbor, lee. There are also sunken piers in Seattle's Elliott Bay and Lake Washington.

Your handwave didn't buy you any wiggle room. Care to try again?

Quote:

"For decades, archaeologists and treasure hunters battled one another over shipwrecks in shallow waters. Both sides could visit and excavate the ruins..."

Notice that this isn't just about any shipwreck, it's a Phoenician shipwreck. And clearly referred to as ruins.

Yes, but these are not scattered planks underwater, they are recognizable as constituting what used to be a whole ship.

1. Really? How did you come to that conclusion? Guessing again? You must be - because you're wrong about the nature of the shipwreck site. It makes no mention of "constituting what used to be a whole ship." In fact, it says the opposite:

What lies beneath the amphoras and the muck -- perhaps the ship's wooden hull, tools, personal items and coins, which would help pinpoint the date of the sinking -- can only be learned by excavation.

So apparently it is NOT recognizable as a ship - because the elements of the ship itself remain mired in the muck, and are not visible.

Gosh, lee -- embarrassed again. But I suppose that is what you get when you don't read the links that people give you, huh? :rolling:

2. You seem to think that this article (and the reference to "ruins") only applied to this one particular wreck. You are wrong about that as well. The article, in calling these Phoenician wrecks by the term "ruins", was describing the general case of Phoenician wrecks. It was not talking about this one particular shipwreck:

For decades, archaeologists and treasure hunters battled one another over shipwrecks in shallow waters. Both sides could visit and excavate the ruins by means of relatively inexpensive scuba gear, which allows divers to go down 100 feet or so.

Quote:

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!

Except that your criteria is (yet another) spur-of-the-moment definition that you tacked onto the discussion, and is not supported by the facts presented. Rubble is the same thing as ruins, and these ships are not necessarily recognizable as ships due to framing timbers being stuck in the muck or totally disintegrated.

Quote:

Stone sinks if it is tossed into the water.

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.

1. Yes, they do sink that way. If you think that stone piers behave differently in water from any other stone material that is placed in water, then by all means --- feel free to present evidence to support that claim.

2. You feel like YOU'RE wasting time clearing underbrush? My irony meter just broke.

3. But in case you still think you're being asked to do too much brush-clearing.....try using some references and facts. They're the best tools for brush-clearing. Which is probably why you're having such a hard time with it.

Quote:

At the time the prophecy was uttered, Tyre was a complete city and did not need to be "built more".

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

Nice try, but that isn't what I said. Tyre was a complete city, and did not need further building to reach that status.

Quote:

The building was not stopped, and you have no evidence to show that. If you think you do, go ahead and present it.

Renan couldn't tell the present state of Tyre when he came there?

Already answered.

1. It does not imply that Renan was mistaken about the current state of the city. Renan never saw the current state of the city - he saw it over 150 years ago.

2. The logic mistake you made is pretty appalling. If Renan had made a historical mistake about the events of 13th century Tyre, that implies zero about Renan's accuracy on the state of the city when he saw it five centuries later. How laughable. That is like saying if we have a modern American who believes a mistake about the history of the settling of Boston, that somehow implies that they are mistaken about the current state of the city of Boston. Nonsense. And yes, this really isn't relevant to the discussion - but I wanted to point out the logic mistake, because it's pretty elementary, and yet you didn't correct yourself before posting.

3. The Tyre that Renan saw was not in the same state as the Tyre that was ransacked in the 13th century anyhow. Tyre had been expanded under the Ottomans.

Quote:

He has to be lying, if he was wrong, and Nina doesn't dispute his conclusion.

1. No lying necessary. Just not being a modern archaeologist.

2. It isn't professional for an archaeologist or a historian to do a character assassination. So Nina does caution about his conclusions. That is why she specifically tells the reader that Renan was a good guy, but not operating with modern methods of archaeology.

Quote:

Renan never saw the current state of the city - he saw it over 150 years ago.

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

But that isn't what you said.

And as I pointed out above:

2. The logic mistake you made is pretty appalling. If Renan had made a historical mistake about the events of 13th century Tyre, that implies zero about Renan's accuracy on the state of the city when he saw it five centuries later. How laughable. That is like saying if we have a modern American who believes a mistake about the history of the settling of Boston, that somehow implies that they are mistaken about the current state of the city of Boston. Nonsense.

Quote:

Presence of a fault line is not "evidence" of Seattle sinking, nor is it "proof" of Seattle sinking.

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

No, it cannot because:

1. you have not connected the ruins to the faultline;

2. you have not ruled out the other far more likely and historically plausible explanations for the material underwater;

3. you have not explained the contrary evidence - evidence that could not exist, if such an earthquake happened;

In short, your "Tyre sunk" scenario makes about as much sense as blaming space aliens for your broken window, when there is a baseball laying on your front porch with broken glass all around it.

Quote:

Interestingly, [Lee] 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.

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

"We" don't need any such thing.

YOU need to demonstrate how the contradiction in your position can be maintained.

Sauron · 06-18-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

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.

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."

Well, all I can say is that getting one's education in ancient history from TIME-Life Books is about as bad as getting it from Reader's Digest. You seem to forget that I have studied this material extensively, and -- unlike yourself -- I'm not just guessing when I say something.

ITEM #1
From Jidejian:

Quote:

An administrative document concerning the reign of Nebuchandezzar found in Babylon gives the list of persons receiving pensions from the royal Babylonian household:

(FURTHERMORE): THE KING OF TYRE, THE KING OF GAZA, THE KING OF SIDON, THE KING OF ARVAD, THE KING OF ASHDOD, THE KING OF MIR (. . .) THE KING OF . . .

Several tablets found at Babylon list deliveries of oil for the subsistence of individuals who were either prisoners of war or dependent upon the royal household. They are identified by name, profession and nationality:

. . . T(O?)IA --U-KIN, KING . . .
TO THE qiputu-HOUSE OF . . .
. . . FOR SHALAMIAMU, THE . . .
. . . FOR 126 MEN FROM TYRE . . .
. . . FOR ZABIRIA, THE LY(DIAN) . . .

[...]
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.

Which is *precisely* what I said above. It was customary for a conqueror to take the royal class and elites back to his capital as "guest hostages", and also to preven them from becoming instigators of revolt.

You crowed about having the Jidejian book- until you realized that I had it also. But you ignored her book on this question. How convenient - you toss the seminal work on Tyre aside when it fails to support you?

ITEM #2
And about the period after Nebuchadnezzar - the period that I said Tyre continued to be the Wall Street of the Ancient Near East - we read this from Britannica:

Quote:

For much of the 8th and 7th centuries the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585-573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II. Between 538 and 332 it was ruled by the Achaemenian kings of Persia. In this period it lost its hegemony in Phoenicia but continued to flourish.

Which again, supports what I said.

ITEM #3
As for Nebuchadnezzar going away empty handed, that fact is well known. It was even known to Ezekiel:

Quote:

EZE 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

EZE 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

EZE 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

This clearly shows that Nebuchadnezzar got *nothing* from Tyre - as I stated. What's more, Nebuchadnezzar got zero from Egypt as well. But that's a debate for another day.

Now on to your newest bizarre hypothesis:

Quote:

Yes, I agree that Tyre will not be found again, which I hold refers to the people:

Ah, I see that MadMez has stolen my thunder about the Phoenician DNA project. :rolling: I also knew about the National Geographic article (I have a subscription); in fact I made oblique reference to it in this post. However, I wasn't going to show my full hand of cards until Lee got off his lazy ass and started supporting his claims.

lee_merrill · 06-19-2005, 11:40 AM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Lee: The outline of Tyre is rather extravagant, and would be difficult at best to follow with a wall.

Sauron: Tyre is not oddly shaped. If you think it is, then demonstrate that claim...

Have you not yet looked on page 12 of your Nina book? Why are we disputing this, if you have the map?

Quote:

Sauron: "nations" cannot continue after Nebuchadnezzar, unless Nebuchadnezzar himself continues after that point. But that didn't happen; Nebuchadnezzar did not make any further attacks on Tyre after the 13 year siege.

You are ignoring the nature of two things being the same thing - being equated.

This, however, assumes they are equated ("nations" cannot continue after Neb unless Neb continues), in order to prove they are equated.

Quote:

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

Sauron: No, you did not respond to all five points.

1. You tossed out what-if scenarios.
2. I (and others) easily shot them down.
3. Thus, you were left with zero valid rebuttals.
4. Which means the other four original scenarios I provided are still more plausible than your "Tyre sunk" scenario.

So since your previous responses were dead on arrival, when do you plan to respond to those four scenarios I presented? Hmm?

And this is not a refutation, nor a response to my responses. I could proceed similarly, and say "You tossed out my proposed alternatives, I shot down your proposals, thus you are left with zero points, which means my points are all more plausible than your 'Alex threw stones into the ocean instead of putting them on his causeway, etc. etc.' scenarios."

I think I will now skip the rest of this response from Sauron, and move onto the next one.

Quote:

Lee: 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."

Sauron: 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.

Well, on page 19 of Nina's book I read, "Palaetyrus [the mainland settlement of Tyre] was forced to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. Its walls do not seem to have been restored..." Implying Neb took them down, and indeed, conquered the mainland city, and yet the inhabitants mainly fled to the island, taking their treasures with them (I agree he got nothing from Tyre), and thus the nominal submission was probably the submission of the island fortress, not the mainland city.

Quote:

Brittanica: "For much of the 8th and 7th centuries the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585-573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II."

Well yes, again, the island fortress withstood this siege, but your claim was, I believe, about the mainland city.

Quote:

Nat'l Geographic: "... the results are consistent with a settlement of people from the Levant within the past 2,000 years, and that points to the Phoenicians."

I'm not sure a resolution of 2,000 years is enough to pinpoint the Phoenicians, though! Especially since "the Levant" seems to be a large, general area east of the Mediterranean, certainly not specifically Tyre, Sidon, Carthage and Byblos & co.

Regards,
Lee

scotter · 06-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Sauron,

Hi. I am new. I am only aware of this debate thread recently. Since then I read the thread from page one dated from April and have been on this thread.

Sauron and forum members – Christian and non-Christian, I register myself solely because of this thread, because I just want to say Sauron you have my respect and admiration. I do hope to continue to involve more.

--- 2 ½ months and 10 pages?
Yes, I actually agree Lee is dragging this thread on purpose, and I think everybody who has been with this thread agrees.

Lee is dragging the thread until he thinks he can wear you out. It is no longer about the prophecy of destruction of Tyre.

Are you a Christian Lee?
If you are, regardless of what I believe, I shall be ashamed to call myself one.

Scotter.

martini · 06-20-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Doesn't "bring you down to the people of long ago" imply people here, though, not a city?

"I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit," surely we would think first of people here, and not take "those who go down" as other cities, going into Sheol.

were you not the one that was implying that the city was supposed to sink? people would not worry about "going down to the pit" on a sinking city!

Quote:

It's again possible, yet why would there be a further statement that "you will sought, but will not be found," if this was the interpretation? Surely people wouldn't think they could look for geographical cities in Sheol.

that is exactly my point. Tyre was to never be found again (verse 21), remember?

Quote:

Well, some translations read "not return" or "not have respect" instead of "be not inhabited" here in verse 20, so the KJV interpretation here is not sure and certain.

well, i think you should let me in on your perfected version of the translated/transliterated Bible so that we will not stumble over these issues...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2005, 06:57 PM	#224
lee_merrill Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,074	Hi Madmez, Well, this is interesting... "Now he and Zalloua hope to use a different alphabet, the molecular letters of DNA, to exhume these ghosts." Sounds like the results are mainly future at this point though, if I may say so, but if you find (fish up? speaking of Phoenicians) some further information on this, I would be glad to hear it... Regards, Lee

06-19-2005, 04:46 PM	#229
scotter New Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: East Coast Posts: 1	Sauron, Hi. I am new. I am only aware of this debate thread recently. Since then I read the thread from page one dated from April and have been on this thread. Sauron and forum members – Christian and non-Christian, I register myself solely because of this thread, because I just want to say Sauron you have my respect and admiration. I do hope to continue to involve more. --- 2 ½ months and 10 pages? Yes, I actually agree Lee is dragging this thread on purpose, and I think everybody who has been with this thread agrees. Lee is dragging the thread until he thinks he can wear you out. It is no longer about the prophecy of destruction of Tyre. Are you a Christian Lee? If you are, regardless of what I believe, I shall be ashamed to call myself one. Scotter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.