Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Why would an Island Tyre surrender to Nebby if the can always get fresh supplies by ship?

From where exactly? Babylon was in possession of all the Levantine coast. No city would help it and risk the same fate. Obviously Tyre got supplies from far off, but it was long and risky business. After 13 years of this with no income to support expenditure on dangerous supply voyages, it is not hard to see the eventual outcome of submission.

spin

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

Darklighter · 01-30-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So Nebby did attack the Island with his Sea Horses and caused a truce? :Cheeky:

The obvious conclusion is that after 13 years of siege, the Tyrians, unable to continue, came to an agreement with Babylon and functionally surrendered. (The island itself was never directly attacked by Nebuchadnezzar. He merely maintained forces to prevent Tyre from getting any resources from Babylonian held territories.) The Babylonian then removed the position of king and installed a member of the royal line as an administrator.

spin

Good summary. Now I'll throw in my concluding 2 cents:

1. If Ezekiel could truly forsee the future, and the prophecy in chapter 26 is really broken up into 2 different conquests by 2 different kings, WHY is only one king mentioned? Certainly it would not have been difficult to throw in Alexanders name too, would it?

2. Why does Ezekiel clearly and consistently distinguish between 'Tyre' and 'Her settlements on the mainland'?

3. If Nebby defeated Tyre, why was a truce reached, and why did that truce allow Tyre to remain independent?

4. If Nebby defeated Tyre, why did he not receive any "wages, for his services rendered"?

5. If Tyre was never to be rebuilt, why was it repeatedly rebuilt?

6. If Tyre was never to be inhabited, why has it been continually inhabited?

7. Why is it not a stretch to say that a "city in the midst of the sea" might someday end up in the sea?

8. Why does Ezekiel say that Tyre would be 'scraped into the sea' instead of 'scraped into the sea to form a causway'? Would this not be an easy feat for a "true" prophet?

9. Why does EVERY SCHOLARLY SOURCE YOU QUOTE back up the atheistic perspective instead of that of the innerentist?

10. Why have arnoldo, suger, and Huguenot not admitted defeat when they clearly have been defeated?

History and Ezekiel say: YOU LOSE.

Sheshonq · 01-30-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

From where exactly? Babylon was in possession of all the Levantine coast. No city would help it and risk the same fate. Obviously Tyre got supplies from far off, but it was long and risky business. After 13 years of this with no income to support expenditure on dangerous supply voyages, it is not hard to see the eventual outcome of submission.

spin

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

You're the one who claimed he had no ships at all, arnoldo. When you going to present the proof for that?

Not that ships would have been necessary for a blockade. *

* Not a trick question - just beyond arnoldo's cut-and-paste educational level.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-30-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

From where exactly? Babylon was in possession of all the Levantine coast. No city would help it and risk the same fate. Obviously Tyre got supplies from far off, but it was long and risky business. After 13 years of this with no income to support expenditure on dangerous supply voyages, it is not hard to see the eventual outcome of submission.

spin

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

...Even though absolutely nobody here has said that Nebby did this? (if you control the other ports along the coast, you don't need to use ships to "blockade the island").

What hallucinogenic substances are you employing, arnoldo? Please desist.

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

...Even though absolutely nobody here has said that Nebby did this? (if you control the other ports along the coast, you don't need to use ships to "blockade the island").
.

And you have proof that Nebby was controling ports along the entire Mediterranean Coast?

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 12:34 PM

Why did Tyre think it could withstand an attack against Alexander the Great if Nebby had no problems defeating them?

Darklighter · 01-30-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

From where exactly? Babylon was in possession of all the Levantine coast. No city would help it and risk the same fate. Obviously Tyre got supplies from far off, but it was long and risky business. After 13 years of this with no income to support expenditure on dangerous supply voyages, it is not hard to see the eventual outcome of submission.

spin

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

No proof is needed since you're using that point as a red herring. It doesn't matter HOW he managed to choke the city (even though spin has already given a VERY plausible scenerio), the only point that matters is that he FAILED to conquer it! Why can you not see this?

spin · 01-30-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Even though absolutely nobody here has said that Nebby did this? (if you control the other ports along the coast, you don't need to use ships to "blockade the island").

And you have proof that Nebby was controling ports along the entire Mediterranean Coast?

They didn't. They controlled all the close ones. This means just to get water one would have to journey for several days. The same for food. Tyre's 13 year endurance is certainly impressive.

spin

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And you have proof that Nebby had many ships to establish a blockade of the island?

No proof is needed since you're using that point as a red herring. It doesn't matter HOW he managed to choke the city (even though spin has already given a VERY plausible scenerio), the only point that matters is that he FAILED to conquer it! Why can you not see this?

If Nebby failed to conquer Tyre why were the Tyre princes sent into captivity in Babylon?

deadman_932 · 01-30-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This thread is like watching Mike Tyson spar with Goldilocks. Can anyone give me a reason not to close it?

I'll check back in an hour or so.

Not me. Nope.

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

01-30-2008, 12:34 PM	#656
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	Why did Tyre think it could withstand an attack against Alexander the Great if Nebby had no problems defeating them?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.