Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-27-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So then you agree, if you accept your own quotes, that the island was the city and center of Tyre, while Ushu was a coastal town it sometimes held, sometimes used, and sometimes did without. :wave:

After Hiram the island may have become more important. But what I am showing is that Ushu, Old Tyre, was included in the Tyrian kingdom.

So far all you've got is a statement by Menander about something called Palai-Tyre and nothing else. You ain't shown nothin' yet.

We've got a history of two entities, Tyre and Ushu. :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I also believe that the mainland city was first, because there is no way all those inhabitants could have live on such a small piece of land that was only enlarged during Hiram with no water and no place to bury the dead and may I add no where to grow food.

Again with this "believe"? I don't care what you believe. I care about what you can show. And you ain't shown nothin' yet.

The king of Tyre lived on his island. Hiram enlarged the island of Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years. How long did it take Ashurbanipal to capture Ushu? It was pretty quick. How long did it take Nebuchadnezzar to take Ushu? Certainly just as quick. The siege of Tyre, you know the island lasted 13 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

As the prophecy clearly shows it was the mainland city that ws to be destroyed by the nations while God clearly shows the judgement of the island is to buried deep under the sea...two judgements for two locations one has already occured....the next will surely happen remeber the earthquake that caused the island to be abandoned?.....that was a warning of what is to come :wave:

Rubbish. Tyre is in the midst of the sea. It is an island.

spin

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Why didn't the Jews *edit* the book of Ezekiel to include Alexander?

Obviously, because too many people were already aware of the previous version, but you did not answer my question. Please do so. You said that fulfilled prophecy strengthened the faith of the Jews. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander, that would have strengthened the faith of Jews and Christians much more.

You probably have the mistaken impression that I believe that all Bible prophecies are deliberate lies. That is not what I believe. In my opinion, innocent but inaccurate revelations are far more common in religous books than deliberate lies.

Wrong Answer. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander you would have called it a prophecy after the fact just like you call Daniel a prophecy after the fact. Are you claiming Ezekiel was a false prophecy because it was written before the fact and is inaccurate? Or is it false because it was written after the fact and is inaccurate? It's hard to keep your arguments straight.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-27-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong Answer. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander you would have called it a prophecy after the fact just like you call Daniel a prophecy after the fact. Are you claiming Ezekiel was a false prophecy because it was written before the fact and is inaccurate? Or is it false because it was written after the fact and is inaccurate?

If all that you are trying to reasonably prove is that the God of the Bible can predict the future, I will concede that he can predict the future for the sake of argument, but I am still not willing to become a Christian because God is immoral.

Are you now aware that God's charcter is the most important issue, not his power?

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong Answer. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander you would have called it a prophecy after the fact just like you call Daniel a prophecy after the fact. Are you claiming Ezekiel was a false prophecy because it was written before the fact and is inaccurate? Or is it false because it was written after the fact and is inaccurate?

If all that you are trying to reasonably prove is that the God of the Bible can predict the future, I will concede that he can predict the future for the sake of argument, but I am still not willing to become a Christian because God is immoral.

Are you now aware that God's charcter is the most important issue, not his power?

Agustine refuted amoral theory a long time ago.

Quote:

Just War
Augustine developed a theology of just war, that is, war that is acceptable under certain conditions. Firstly, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power. Secondly, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. Thirdly, love must be a central motive even in the midst of violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Johnny Skeptic · 01-27-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong answer. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander you would have called it a prophecy after the fact just like you call Daniel a prophecy after the fact. Are you claiming Ezekiel was a false prophecy because it was written before the fact and is inaccurate? Or is it false because it was written after the fact and is inaccurate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If all that you are trying to reasonably prove is that the God of the Bible can predict the future, I will concede that he can predict the future for the sake of argument, but I am still not willing to become a Christian because God is immoral.

Are you now aware that God's charcter is the most important issue, not his power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Augustine refuted amoral theory a long time ago.

"Just War

Augustine developed a theology of just war, that is, war that is acceptable under certain conditions. Firstly, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power. Secondly, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. Thirdly, love must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

On the contrary, that does not prove anything. The three issues are 1) war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power, 2) just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state, and 3) love must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.

Regarding item 1, God's judgments of the words "good" and "just" are entirely arbitrary, meaning that his judgments are merely his own personal opinions that are not enforceable by any means other than dictatorial power.

Regarding item 2, I have already discussed the word "just."

Regarding item 3, they key words are "love", and "motive." Aside from the factor that God's definition of the word "love" is arbitrary, regarding assessing a being's character, motives are everything. If a God exists, no one know what his motives are.

spin · 01-27-2008, 02:10 PM

For chrissake would you two lovebirds stick to the topic?

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a God exists, no one know what his motives are.

So do you still judge God to be immoral?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-27-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a God exists, no one know what his motives are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So do you still judge God to be immoral?

We are distracting readers with our off-topic comments. I suggest that we continue our discussions about God's character at the MF&P Forum in the thread where you and I have been discussing God's character. I will transfer this post to that thread.

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Rubbish. Tyre is in the midst of the sea. It is an island.

spin

FYI, Tyre is in the sea and on the mainland. Hawaii is part of the United States even though it's noted connected to the American Continent.

Quote:

"The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur." [3] Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast (approximately 30 stadia apart or 3.5 miles according to Strabo in his Geography xvi, 2), before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high[4] and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city. [5] Josephus even records them fighting against each other [6], although most of the time they supported one another due to the island city’s wealth from maritime trade and the mainland area’s source of timber, water and burial grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre_(Lebanon)

makerowner · 01-27-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Rubbish. Tyre is in the midst of the sea. It is an island.

spin

FYI, Tyre is in the sea and on the mainland. Hawaii is part of the United States even though it's noted connected to the American Continent.

Quote:

"The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur." [3] Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast (approximately 30 stadia apart or 3.5 miles according to Strabo in his Geography xvi, 2), before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high[4] and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city. [5] Josephus even records them fighting against each other [6], although most of the time they supported one another due to the island city’s wealth from maritime trade and the mainland area’s source of timber, water and burial grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre_(Lebanon)

Even if the prophecy referred to the Tyrian kingdom as a whole, including the mainland, it would still apply to the island as well. The text of Ez. 26 clearly distinguishes between the mainland settlements and the island city, and claims that Nebuchadrezzar would destroy both:

"[7] "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers.
[8] He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you." (emphasis added)

Notice the distinction between "your daughters on the mainland" (Ushu and any other mainland settlements) and "you" (Tyre).

"[9] He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.
[10] His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as one enters a city which has been breached.
[11] With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground.
[12] They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters." (emphasis added)

Now remember that throughout this section 'you' refers to the island city as opposed to the mainland ("your daughters"). Did Nebuchadrezzar trample down all the streets of the island city? Did he break down its walls or cast its stones into the waters?

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

01-27-2008, 02:10 PM	#346
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	For chrissake would you two lovebirds stick to the topic?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.