sugarhitman

*SIGH* Whoever said that Tyre was only on the mainland. But the Mainland city was the Mother city. Hiram Built the island city in the 10th century. The mainland city is more ancient. Read Joshua, the fortified mainland city existed then. :wave:

sugarhitman

Well according to history this spot is the same spot where all that rubble was located by Alex to build his causeway. You're not suggesting that Alex used rubble from a demolished city that was on the island to build his causeway to the island....are you? :wave:

Jack the Bodiless

Irrelevant. The "mainland city" wasn't Tyre.
He used rubble from USHU to build a causeway to TYRE.

...Which, incidentally, he did NOT destroy. He did a lot of damage and killed a lot of people, but Tyre recovered. It even regained its independence.

arnoldo

Your claim is absurd, the bible is much more than a book of prediction, it is the Living Word of God.

Johnny Skeptic

What historical evidence is there that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events? The correct answer is, none at all. Are skeptics obligated to reasonably prove that the prophecy was made after the events? The correct answer is no. Is it encumbent upon anyone to disprove a claim that someone else makes? The correct answer is no. Regarding the Tyre prophecy, is the Bible the claimant? The correct answer is yes. Is it reasonably possible that Ezekiel knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to invade Tyre in advance? Yes. Is it likely that a supposed prophet would claim that "a king of kings" would go down the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers, and fail to conquer Tyre? The correct answer is no.

If a God exists, there is no doubt that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would have made some indisputable prophecies that came true thousands of years ago. Either sugarhitman or arnoldo made an invalid argument something like that if God made lots of predictions, false prophets could somehow deceive people. I replied that no false prophet could predict when and where natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day and year. God's refusal to make indisputable predictions is good evidence that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future, or that he does not exist. Providing better evidence could not possibly harm God or anyone else. In addition, God's refusal to provide better evidence limits the size of the Christian church.

Johnny Skeptic

Is that by any chance part of your next fantasy novel? Do you have any evidence that backs that up? No?, well I didn't think that you did.

The book of Daniel is fraudulent. Here is proof, and using Josh McDowell's OWN sources.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tz/critic.html

Jack the Bodiless

On the contrary: the Bible is not even a book of prediction.

And posting chunks of preaching from clueless apologists isn't going to change that. We still don't have a single verifiably-successful prophecy in the Bible, and there certainly aren't any in what you just posted. There is no confirmation that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (and some evidence to the contrary, according to John 7), there was no Herodian "massacre of the innocents" (a story apparently invented by Matthew to create a parallel between Jesus and Moses), there never was a prophecy that God would call his son out of Egypt (Matthew again, mangling an OT reference to the Exodus), there never was a prophecy that Christ would be called a Nazarene (a confusion over "Nazirite")...

...and Ezekiel was a false prophet, twice over (the Tyre prophecy failed, and when Ezekiel offered Egypt to Nebby as compensation for the failure at Tyre, that failed too).

Johnny Skeptic

But it is easy to make prophecies after the fact. Do you have any evidence that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events?

Johnny Skeptic

I am not going to wade through all of that. If you want me to comment on something from that web site, you will have to quote it.

At any rate, since this thread is about the Tyre prophecy, you are off-topic. If you wish to debate Josephus and/or Daniel, please start a new thread, or participate in my new thread about the book of Daniel

spin

sugarhitman. First, you are not answering my questions, but trying to make counter offers. Please just answer the questions. Here they are again:

1. Why were all the other Phoenician cities built on island, but you think Tyre, which was founded by Sidon, was not?
2. Why would the central city of Tyre be on the land if there was an island off the coast that they could inhabit and thus be safer from siege?
3. Why does Hiram king of Tyre say to Solomon, "do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber, which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island"? (Josephus, AJ 8.2.7. See also 8.6.3)
4. Why does Josephus tell us that Hiram "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them", Contra Apion 1.17, if Tyre was on the mainland?
5. Where were "Old Tyre"'s harbors?
6. Why did Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each besiege Tyre a few decades after the other, if they had each conquered the city and dominated it? Was it not because Tyre was an island and it came to an accord with each king from the safety of that island?
7. What did Nebuchadnezzar do against the inhabitants of the island for the 13 years?
8. Why does Ezekiel say, "King Nebuchadnezzar made his army labor hard against Tyre... yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor he expended against it", 29:18?
9. Why does Ezekiel refer to the mainland possessions connected to Tyre as the "daughters on the land", if "Old Tyre" was on land?
10. Why does Ezekiel refer to Tyre as being in the midst of the sea, 27:32, if it was not an island?

Can you just answer the questions?

And I have asked you before, when you cite something be meaningful in your citation. Give the exact source otherwise you are giving nothing. Is that clear? Your half-ass citations are worthless, for there is no way to understand who is saying what in what context from what sources.
After doing a google search for your quote, I discover it was written in 1913, a beginners guide to history called "The Story of the Greatest Nations and the World's Greatest Events", written before much was known of Tyre and its relations with Assyria and Babylon. Scratched as a source. You have to do better than that.

No sources given from this website. Scratched. Sources are important when you make an argument. You want to know where the information came from so that you can weigh up its validity.

This seems to be a rewrite of Josephus, except for the implied error of you give to "The island itself was said to have been created by Hiram." Look at the quotation from Josephus in my fourth question and see that Hiram did indeed unite the two islands, but they were inhabited before that time, for he simply "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them." You would have saved yourself the time and the error if you had read my questions and tried to respond to them.

We know that Tyre didn't exist at the time Herodotus ascribes, so Herodotus is obviously wrong. He was not an inhabitant of the Levant, so he was out of his field -- but then he was only learning the trade and inventing it as he went, for there were few historians before him. You can forgive him his errors.

We have discounted Herodotus simply because we know his information is faulty.

Now that this crap has been exposed, please get back to my questions.


spin