Johnny Skeptic

And quite conveniently I might add. You are well aware that you cannot accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and that as a result you have lost the debate.

Johnny Skeptic

Lee avoided replying to my comment about dating because he didn’t want to embarrass himself anymore than he already has. That is why he vacated that thread. In typical fashion, he did not quote “any�? corroborative sources that back up his arguments. This is simply not done in debates. Apparently Lee believes that if he makes completely uncorroborated assertions, a few gullible people might believe him. He might be right. A few gullible people believe that the earth is flat.

Unlike Lee, I provide corroborative sources for my arguments. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says “For much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II.�?

An excerpt from an article at http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm says “Early in the sixth century B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years. Tyre stood firm, but it was probable that at this time the residents of the mainland city abandoned it for the safety of the island.�?

An excerpt from an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre says “[Tyre] was besieged by Shalmanseer III,………and by Nebuchadnezzar (586-573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians.�?

Sauron

Making stuff up again?

I've already destroyed that argument in this post with a quote from Jidejian - you remember her, don't you lee? The author you tried to misquote, until I provided the full context of her comment? :rolling:

Anyhow, on to your current bullshit claim:

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.

The historical evidence says it was a nominal surrender - in other words, a truce because both sides wanted to claim a victory, and neither side wanted to lose face.

No we may not. And in point of fact, that almost certainly did NOT happen. After resisting Nebuchadnezzar for 13 years, the Tyrians were certainly not likely to throw the door open to him and just let him march inside with his armies and chariots.

"Hey boys - it's Nebuchadnezzar. He's standing outside the main gate. He says he wants to end the fighting and just go home."

"Has he withdrawn his armies yet?"

"No, they're still with him. But gee - he sounds *really* sincere."

"Oh, well in THAT case - throw open the main gates to the city and let the gentleman in, for pete's sake! Oh, and while you're at it - ask him to bring in all those nice shiny chariots and those cute horsies with him, too. We'll just forget about the 13 year siege and throw a keg party and barbecue. It was all in good fun anyhow, right?"

Holy shit, lee. If you're going to make stuff up, you ought to at least try to make up something *believable*. :rolling:


I see your assembly line for ad hoc assumptions still works. There is zero reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar ever entered inside the island city, thus you have no basis to even speculate about any alleged procession.

Procession - the idea is totally preposterous. In addition to the contrary evidence from history, even the text in Ezekiel works against your newest lame scenario. The actions Ezekiel described for these military units are actions of conquest, destruction, and murder - this isn't some kind of peaceful ceremonial procession for a diplomatic event.

Is there *any* contorted excuse that you won't offer, just to avoid admitting that you were wrong about this?

Already explained. "They" refers to the horsemen, archers, military units, etc. that were supposed to destroy the island city - but failed to do so.

1. Toss out a few claims.
2. Wave your hands.
3. Exit through the back door.

Classic lee_merrill.

John A. Broussard

I'll drink to that.

Sauron

A shameless bump of this thread, just to make sure that lee_merrill can find it.

Lee, where are you? :wave:

Johnny Skeptic

What I want to see Lee Merrill do is to try to accurately date the Tyre prophecy. Without accurate dating the prophecy is useless even it it came true.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Lee is still bowed out! And shall continue in that state. Just don't drink and drive, by the way, John...

Blessings,
Lee <- Tyred at 1 A.M. ...

Julian

I think it is safe to say that the prophecy was written before the fact, for the simple reason that it is wrong. I mean, who would write a prophecy after the event and manage to get it wrong?

Julian

John A. Broussard

You are giving the divinely inspired writers much too much credit for intelligence.

Johnny Skeptic

You are merely preaching to the skeptic choir, but my argument about dating is directed to fundamentalist Christians. They believe that the prophecy was made before the fact, and that it was not wrong, so what I want them to do is to reasonably date the prophecy, which they have conveniently refused to do.