lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Then it was destroyed? But we don't have to put this restoration after the conquest of Alexander.

Then silence in archaeology is infallible?

You are not claiming that it didn't happen, then?

Yes, "layers." Now layers imply some discontinuity, do they not? People don't generally note a building standing where they want their new home, and then cover it up with dirt (all over the city, this must be happening, and all at the same time! And only once!) before beginning construction.

Which is why I cite them when they support a point I want to make.

So we are agreeing that assertions don't prove a point! So we do need more than this.

That's precisely what I'm wondering about, though. Saying it is so doesn't make it true, can we not agree at least on this principle?

Tyre was not the size of LA, though, by any means.

You wouldn't need to list them for that reason, if ships weren't going to sail near them, though.

Why was the cry "Land ahoy!" though, if they always recognized where they were? Most coasts look alike, from a distance, when you don't look at them from a bird's perspective.

Acts 28:1 Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.

I'm proposing that it wasn't a port when it sank, though.

But pillars aren't rubble produced by building a building. Now you might toss them out before building, but tossing out building materials strikes me as odd, especially if you have to haul your building materials in from somewhere else for this construction on an island.

It could be, now how probable is each alternative, and how probable is it that these pillars underwater are real ruins? Well, Nina Jidejian's book, "Tyre Through the Ages," calls them ruins, not rubble, so we may take this as indicating at least the author's opinion here.

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Half the city buildings were destroyed under Alexander. The island city was never totally destroyed by any invander.

Doesnt' matter when you put it. Still doesn't work for you.

Stupid question. Archaeology contradicts the affirmative statement of the prophecy. There is no evidence to support it.


I am refuting your claim that it *did* happen. And since your claim comes first, it's your job to demonstrate first. He who claims first, has first burden of proof.

No, they don't. Stop guessing and start reading.

Except that they were not supporting your point. So by citing them, you are either stupid or just playing games.


No, we are agreeing that you haven't proven your original assertion - and that as a result no one needs to offer anything in response to you, until your argument matures beyond the "what if" stage.

"Saying so" is not what makes this true - what makes this true is the fact that the evidence supports (1) and (2) above.

Irrelevant. Square miles is not the question. Power, influence, and notoriety are the key attributes.

Yeah, you "propose" a lot of things - supporting these ideas is apparently not your game.

Except that it was a port, and you've offered zero evidence to show otherwise. So you have to show (1) a major trading center like LA or Manhattan becomes a rock, and then (2) sinks without anyone noticing it. You can't get to (2) without proving (1) first. And even then (2) is not believable.

Wrong. Every building project has raw materials, scraps, etc. that don't make it into the final project. The history of Egypt, for example, shows many broken pillars, cracked columns, etc. that were discarded.

And that leaves out the other 4 likely explanations I offered.

Nonsense. Ever see a trash dump on Manhattan? Don't bother; you won't find one. They haul their trash away because land is so expensive there.

The island of Tyre had even more limited space, and real estate in a premier financial center would have been expensive and precious. Trash would have been hauled away from the site - not left there - so that people could erect buildings.

Sauron

You're the one claiming they are real ruins of Phoenician Tyre - you need to prove it.

How would you know that? Besides, rubble and ruins are the same thing, archaeologically speaking. Jidejian's comment apparently indicates the ruins are rubble.

badger3k

Why would ships not sail near the coast? Along a major trading route?
You've never been to sea, then? Nor are you aware that the call was made in the 17th century (well, probably in the 16th as well), particularly when ocean going vessels (out of sight of land) were sailing. I'll refer to "Under the Black Flag" by David Cordingly (ISBN: 0-15-600549-2), a good work on the history of piracy, particularly in the 1600-1700s. Pg 82 mentions that before the invention of lunar distance tables (in the 1760s), and the marine chronometer at about the same time, there was no way to tell longitude. From looking at the starts and the sun, navigators could tell if they were north or south of the equator, giving themselves an estimate of where they were. However, they could not now their position otherwise. The common way of sailing was to set forth on a course (using a compass, giving you the heading or bearing), sail for a set time (using estimates for wind speed to judge distance, referred to the ships maps, of course). When they believed they were within the area of their intended destination, the lookouts (who were always on lookout) searched for land. That's when they gave the call. Through maps they may have had (if they were going to a known locale, they probably would have) they could compare features to see if they arrived where they wanted to go. By comparing such features as islands or rocks offshore, river mouths, forests, towns (always a dead giveaway), and others - they can get a good idea of where they were.

Besides, think about it - why in the world would anyone call out "Land Ahoy" if they were never out of sight of land? Just because you may be ignorant is no reason that people who's lives depended on their skill and knowledge would make such a bizarre statement.

Further, by the time oceangoing vessels abounded, technology had advanced to the point where such things as spyglasses and telescopes were in use, and many seamen had them - it made distance viewing easier.
Without going back to the verse to see what they say, this illustrates the point that maps were needed. It was not a perfect system (nor is the one we have today, btw) - even going to the literature from the 1700s, there are many instances of such things - sailors having to land (for reproivisioning and other reasons, and talking to the natives to determine where they were). Makes sense if all they had to go on were maps. Maps that were hand drawn were inaccurate in such things as distance (especially when there was no absolute way of measuring distance). That is quite a stretch if you want to try to relate that to a city-sized island disappearing and nations of sailors not noticeing.

Actually, I did go back and read the passage. If you go to Acts 27, you'll see that the ship was going from Myra (a city of Lycia) to Italy, and they suffered storms that got them lost - and that their boat apparently crashed onto the island (which to them was unknown at the time). That still shows that accurate maps were essential, and that in many ways they were useless if you had no idea where you where. Without something like GPS, ships had to rely on charts - and if they had a disconnect somewhere, such as a storm that carries them an unknown distance in an unknown direction, they were often unsure of where they were. That says nothing about rocks (and whole submerged islands) being unnoticed and not put on maps.

noah

Good posts badger. That's an important new angle. There's no way anybody would have failed to chart the island of Tyre. Sitting just off the coast like that, you would have to record the island and other formations out there. As you say these maps were worth their weight in gold precisely because most of the navigation in those days was visual. Without instruments like the sextant and the compass,for example, the only reference you had was a map.

Regards,

badger3k

Thanks - and thanks for the sextant - I couldn't think of that for the life of me.

Lysimachus

Hello folks, it's been a while since I've even visited these forums, but finally today I came around perusing and saw this thread. If a ton of material has been covered, please forgive me as I've only read the first 2 posts.

I simply thought I'd comment about the destruction of Tyre.

It's been assumed that the biblical prophecy of the destruction of Tyre failed simply because the town exists today and was "rebuilt" contrary to the Biblical prediction.

Many people look at this as evidence to not trust the Bible's revelance and claim that this prophecy failed.

My belief is that this conclusion is formed only when one approaches the prophecy with technical glasses.

When the scripture says "it will be a bear rock and never again will it be rebuilt", this is only speaking of ancient Tyre, not modern day Tyre. That old city of Tyre was never rebuilt into the same city under the empire of which it existed. New Tyre is simply "modern day" Tyre. Anyone can look at a bear rock and say "oh, the prophecy says this would never be rebuilt...so I'm going to rebuild it just so I can defy prophecy and prove it wrong"...bzzzzz...sorry, that isn't going to work. The prophecy already fulfilled. You won't be the one to rebuild it. You'll be just the one to build a bunch of buildings in it's place and then put a brand new label on it and call it "Tyre".

It's only skeptics and critics who are bent on ripping apart the Word of God that will dunk their heads into these technicalities, and it's rare they'll ever get out of it. Unfortunately.

noah

How do you know it's speaking only of ancient Tyre?

I suggest you read all of this thread before you dive in here proclaiming the sanctity and inerrancy of your scripture while summarily dismissing without supporting sources all of the disciplines referenced here.

If you don't know anything about these disciplines then please do not comment on them. We already have one Christian in this thread doing just that.

Sauron

A real recipe for for success.

No, it's assumed that the prophecy failed because it predicted the destruction of Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Since that never happened, the prophecy failed.

It *is* evidence to question the idea of an infallible bible.

....he says, as we watch him try to use a technicality to wiggle out of admitting the failure.

1. It's "bare" rock.

2. In which case the scripture is still wrong, because Tyre never fell and it remained an important city for several centuries after the prophecy.

The old city of Tyre never fell, so it didn't need to be rebuilt.

1. There is no city called "New Tyre". It is simply Tyre.

2. If you're trying to equate "new" with "modern", then my response is -- yeah, so what? New London is simply modern day London. But it's the same city of London.

BZZZT sorry. The prophecy failed.

No, what the skeptics do is examine the clear statement of Ezekiel, compare it against the historical record, and rightly assume that it failed. It is the bible literalists who try to escape out of checkmate, using technicalities.

But thanks for stopping by. Maybe next time you can actually read the thread -- you know, instead of just popping in to drop comments that have already been refuted in earlier posts?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I'm going to stop discussing with Sauron here, I think these quotes give an idea as to why I am stopping. Best wishes to you, Sauron, but I'm not going to discuss this further with you.

They wouldn't sail so near the coast that they would have to chart every rock and sand bar, though, that would be more work than is needed.

I agree, but they would probably not have needed the outline of the coast so much as the shape of notable landmarks, mountains, for instance, for that purpose.

I agree that maps would be useful, but only enough to identify a place, and to show where the harbor was, and any obstacles near the harbor to avoid.

Well, I think the meaning here is that there will be no more buildings there whatsoever, though:

Ezekiel 26:19 When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited…

Regards,
Lee