dongiovanni1976x

Lee, your argument is wholly unconvincing. The entire passage is read with ONE pronoun continuously. It cannot make sense with such an arbitrary switch right in the middle. The passage begins with God addressing the arrogant city of Tyre itself, It is obvious here that we are referring to a city by the clear comparison. The sentence is not even interrupted and continues to say, referring to the fact that Tyre will sink into the sea…it still keeps going using a singular pronoun reference to the city by saying, Still referring to the same you, and explaining how Tyre will sink down (yarad) to the boundary of Sheol (i.e. the Pit) where it will be an utterly desolate city; the same sentence is still going, without interruption as God says, Here is where you think God is talking about people, but this makes no sense because the sentence is still going uninterrupted and it is still using the same referential pronoun since the beginning of the sentence- giving us no reason to suggest such a change AND many verses translate dwell as “sit” or “place” etc but even if we use the word “dwell” we can see why such a word is not out of context with reference to an inanimate city- even metaphorically. This is because “dwell” does not have to refer to people. Websters, Oxford, American Heritage all have entries for dwell that reads, Given that the word “dwell” is used in such a way we have no reason to suggest the arbitrary and nonsensical switch you want to be there. This is ESPECIALLY true when we see that the passage is still going and that same pronoun is still being used throughout all we need to do is keep reading and see what would happen if we were talking about people instead of a city where people can live; the very next group of words that are still in the same sentence read Your reading would make this ABSURD. How can people be inhabited?! Your ulterior motive for this nonsensical and arbitrary switch, which does not account for the fact that the passage is all read in one breath, the same pronoun is used throughout, the word dwell is not exclusively used in all translations but even when it is we have a consensus among our dictionaries that inanimate objects can dwell (in the sense that they remain for a while etc as defined) and the fact that such a reading becomes wholly absurd because people are not said to be INHABITED in anyway.

Read it again:

lee_merrill

Yes I do, especially given the next chapter, which as I have pointed out, is about just that.

But what we need to know is what the Hebrew word means, especially when prefixed with "beth".

Yet I have said all along that part of this refers to the city.

I'm not very sure what breathing has to do with meaning! but it seems the discussion is going around in circles, and has been doing so for the last several rounds, so we must I think now agree to disagree, and I will sign off here for now...

Blessings,
Lee

dongiovanni1976x

Lee,

To "agree to disagree" carries an implication that somehow your position is on the same footing as my own- I could not disagree more. You believe that the Sidonian harbor is not a part of Tyre because it is mistakenly known as such- but provide no evidence for this claim; You posted time and again questioning why there were no Phoenician ruins and when I provided them you dismissed the pottery and questioned the walls existence- based on nothing but pure speculation; and with this use of the Hebrew yashab you offer no reason for this arbitrary switch, even though the phrase continuously refers to Tyre, a city made desolate, covered by the waters and cast down to the Pit to dwell uninhabited forever and never found again. When dictionaries contradict your assertions that cities cannot "dwell", you want to back out of the conversation because you feel like we are going in circles. This is absurd. And it only further demonstrates how weak of a position you have made for the defense of the Tyre prophecy.

I have done my best to debate you in a professional manner and I ahve enjoyed the banter. Some others on this thread sounded disrespectful to you and I felt you deserved to be heard. But I am sorry to say that I understand where they are coming from as I feel as though you have not contributed ANYTHING to this conversaton but speculating on how it maybe, JUST MAYBE, could be possible that Lee Merrill Scenario A or Lee Merril Scenario B could have happened...well I think wild and unsupported speculations are a waste of time and I can see why you have Tyred of presenting them yourself. And for this I thank you.

Tyre exists to this day as the fourth largest city in Lebanon. Tyre is in the exact same spot that it has always been and the same Sidonian harbor is still in use to this day and the old Phoenician wall that Alexander breached is visible to all who travel and visit this ancient city that was supposed to sink into the sea and never be found again.

Gullwind

And as I have pointed out, it does not say what you want it to say. It mentions merchants, yes, but it describes them looking for the physical city, which they cannot find because it sank. It says nothing that only applies to the trading empire. You appear to be interpreting it that way because otherwise the prophecy failed.

dongiovanni1976x

As just about everything else Lee has stated: a. The Sidonian Harbor is not the same; b. the Island portion of Tyre sank even though we have buildings in area 7 that Dr. Bikai excavated and the actual wall of Tyre from Alexander's time above water; c. the prophecy never said Tyre would never be lost forever but just its trading empire and its people etc ad infinitum.

What has Lee offered to support his objections: Gleason Archer said Tyre sank, Nina Jidejian never says yea or nay about the wall, a tourist might have been mislead, dismisses pottery finds as trivial, arbitrarily says that certain pronouns refer to Ushu, some to Tyre, some to people, some to the trading empire - but the reasons all depend on what holds his fragile paradigm together- that being Biblical inerrancy.

What a waste of time this has been. I should be apologizing to Sauron, Jack the Bodiless and Johnny Skeptic and others who recognized this fact much earlier.

Johnny Skeptic

Since Biblical inerrancy is the primary basis of most of Lee's arguments, why in the world hasn't he ever debated Biblical inerrancy? Possibly because he does not want to embarrass himself?

lee_merrill

I, erm, disagree!

But best wishes to one and all,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Well of course you disagree. The only evidence that inerrantists like you need is that the Bible is inerrant, and yet, you refuse to defend Biblical inerrancy. Why is that? I have told you on several occasions that I could easily pay some Arabs to pitch their tents in Babylon, thereby proving that the Bible is not inerrant, but you conveniently refused to take me up on my dare. I also told you that it would not be difficult today for some skeptics to revise the Tyre prophecy, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least one person, but you were afraid to accept my challenge.
You must not have as much faith as you claim you have.

You said that you frequently mention the Babylon prophecy. I asked you where, but you refused to tell me. You most certainly would not debate the Babylon prophecy with me at any debate web site and you know it. You much prefer to discuss it, if you actually do still discuss it, at places where you don't have to deal with arguments like mine.

For many years you have debated prophecy almost exclusively at the Theology Web and here at the Secular Web, I assume with very little success. Which prophecy will you choose to debate next? How about let's debate some of Daniel's prophecies, or how about some supposedly fulfilled messanic prophecies, Micah 5:2 for instance?

One of James Holding's gurus the quite erudite Glenn Miller believes that the Bible is inerrant, but the clever Holding was smart enough to basically say that although he believes that the Bible is inerrant, it doesn't have to be inerrant for his belief system to work.

lee_merrill

I actually believed in the Lord before I held that the Bible is inerrant. Actually...

Blessings,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

We have not been debating whether or not Christianity is valid with or without inerrany being true. We have specifically been debating whether or not the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired. Are you or are you not using inerrancy as the basis for your assumption that the prophecy was dated before the events, and that is has not been revised? If you aren't, then it is quite doubtful that you or anyone else can adequately settle the issues of dating and possible revisions, especially possible revisions. Your frequent evasiveness regarding these important issues indicates weakness on your part. If I were defending a skeptical position regarding a certain issue, and if you frequently asked to me defend an important part of my claims, there is not way that I would be evasive with you.

Regardless of why you became a Christian, you said that you would give up Christianity if the Babylon prophecy is overturned. Well, I am ready to overturn it. How about it?