noah

Lee, the word "for" here (verse 7) is an elaboration on the preceding verses describing the destruction god will bring to Tyre. Still with the elaboration (verse 7) god names Neb and only Neb as the instrument of god's wrath. If you look you will see god describes Neb as King of Kings. Read :"many nations" under him. God goes on to describe the carnage to be wrought by Neb, specifically Neb, in verses 8-11 and in the following verses god continues to foretell the totality of Tyre's destruction. All of these verses follow on from the original verses in this chapter most notably verse 7 in which Neb is named as the King who will destroy Tyre completely, forever. If Alexander was to have been the agent of Tyre's destruction he would have named him. Why? Because he went to the trouble to name Neb. He should have known Neb's siege would fail. He should have named Alexander. That would make it clear.

I am going to quote Steven Carr here regarding this "many nations" claim:

Christians have indeed come up with this ingenious quibble to 'prove' that when Ezekiel was talking about Nebuchadnezzar, he was not talking about Nebuchadnezzar.

The snag is , of course, that the Bible itself refers to the army of Nebuchadnezzar as 'many nations'.

The Bible regarded Nebuchadnezzar's army as being the 'many nations'

Second Kings 24:1-2 is an example of where various nations were mentioned as the parts of the invading force that Nebuchadnezzar brought against Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiakim.

24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.

2 Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by his servants the prophets.

Jeremiah 25:8-9 is another passage that shows that Nebuchadnezzar's army was understood to consist of more than just Babylonians.

25:8 Therefore thus says Yahweh of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words,

9 I am going to send for ALL the tribes of the north, says Yahweh, even for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring THEM against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations

around; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace.

Notice the example of parallelism in verse 9.'All the tribes of the north were even King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon '

King Nebuchadrezzar was therefore all the tribes of the north. The two were the same. The Babylonian empire had been formed from conquests of different tribes, nations, and territories, so Nebuchadrezzar's army was literally an army of many nations and it was quite accepted to refer to Nebuchadnezzar with the royal plural. He could be them quite easily.

Earlier Jeremiah had predicted that Yahweh would bring all the tribes of the North against Jerusalem.

1:14 Then Yahweh said to me: Out of the north disaster shall break out on all the inhabitants of the land.

15 For now I am calling ALL the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says Yahweh; and THEY shall come and ALL OF THEM shall set their thrones at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its surrounding walls and against all the cities of Judah.

Fundamentalists like to say that 'them' and 'many nations' in Ezekiel 26 can't possibly refer to Nebuchadnezzar, when that is just exactly how the Biblical authors liked to refer to Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar had an army,
which the Biblical authors point out correctly, was made up of many tribes and many different nations.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/prophecy.htm

I would also add that "many nations" is hardly the stuff of prophecy Lee. Could you get any vaguer Lee? Talk about room for error. How are we to take your god seriously if he is going to make such imprecise and ambigous prophecies? Specifics make prophecies and where your god is specific, about Neb, he fails.

---Unless "bare rock" meant the island, which is what we are discussing!--

But Lee, the island is not bare rock. Take a look at the pictures. Alexander's causeway has been widened to make the island now look like a peninsula. Why can you not accept that?
As I said Lee you are going to have to prove that the island sank into the sea at some point in Tyre's history.

----Why chariots, though, if the wall was built to the edge of the sea? Or even if it wasn't?----

Lee you would use chariots against the mainland suburb. Once the island fortress had been breached, your chariots would stream on to the island which is big enough to accomodate such warfare.

-----But if he sent all the people he didn't put to death into captivity, that's in the neighborhood of destruction. He wouldn't touch the buildings or the wall if he did this?-----

No Lee. If you read the passages the destruction described is also for the island itself.
And I will make thee like the top of a rock (verse 14)
Yes Alexander did sell into slavery and/or kill the inhabitants.I don't know whether he did this to all the inhabitants. But the city was always rebuilt.Tyre was always rebuilt in the same place.

Here is Steven Carr again:

The Tourism in Lebanon page states ' Near the market you will see a busy fisherman's port, in Phoenician times referred to as the "Sidonian" port because it faced north towards Sidon' and 'The walk to Area Three takes you through a residential part of Tyre called Hay Er-Raml or the Quarter of Sand. You are in fact walking on what once was Alexander the Great's causeway.'

So the port is in the same place as the ancient port and a residential part of Tyre is built right on the scene of the fighting.
Here's the Tourism in Lebanon page: http://www.tourismlebanon.com/discoverlebanon_tyre.htm

We need proof Lee, that the island sank into the sea.

I will allow Farrell and Sauron address the rest of your post (and those parts which I addressed already), the Daniel 9:1 problem as well.

Regards,

Jack the Bodiless

...But it ISN'T underwater!

All you have to do is compare the maps to the photos, Lee. The "ancient city of Tyre" (the island fortress) is pretty much the same shape as the tip of the modern peninsula: and the northern (Sidonian) port is still there. Furthermore, why are you assuming the southern (Egyptian) port is underwater? "Silted up" doesn't mean "underwater": the causeway widened to become the neck of the peninsula by "silting", but it didn't submerge.

It is quite obvious that the island is still there, and also quite obvious that the island is inhabited (at least in part: from the photographs, it appears that some of it is now unoccupied because it's an archaeological site).

Lee, if most of the island sank, don't you think SOMEBODY (other than one confused Christian apologist) would have noticed this rather pertinent fact?

We are still awaiting ONE unbiased account of the sinking of the entire island of Tyre (NOT a passing reference to "underwater ruins"), and an explanation of the PHOTOGRAPHS of Tyre that everyone can see for themselves.

Lee, will you admit that the only reason you continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence for the existence of Tyre is because your religion says it shouldn't exist? Would you apply this to ANY other island, such as Manhattan?

Sauron

I'll deal with lee merrill's nonsense in detail after I get home tonight.

In the meantime, maybe one of the moderators ought to mvoe his comments about Daniel and Darius to the new thread that Farrell Till started on Ahasuerus? It would be easier if this thread focused solely on lee's evasions about Tyre.

Farrell Till

Long and boring and empty of substance! Merrill should try to answer the arguments that have been presented instead of just recycling long discredited inerrantist quibbles like the one immediately below.

When Nebuchadnezzar's army lay siege to Tyre, this was an assault by "many nations," because the Babylonian Empire had expanded by then to include former kingdoms around it, such as Assyria and Syria. Nebuchadnezzar's army included troops from the "nations" it had absorbed. To show how the "many nations" part of the prophecy applied to just the siege that Nebuchadnezzar laid against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:1-14, let's look at the full context of the "prophecy."

In the opening verses of this passage, Ezekiel had Yahweh pronouncing doom on Tyre, which would result from "many nations" coming against it. After stating this, he explained how this would be done: "For thus says the Lord GOD: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, king of kings, together with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great and powerful army." Nothing else was said about any army other than Nebuchadnezzar's being involved in the destruction of Tyre; hence, the "many nations" mentioned early in the passage must have been a reference to the multi-national composition of Nebuchadnezzar's army.

There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel here, so I am just going to quote my rebuttal of this "many-nations" quibble when it was presented by a biblicist named Bromling in another forum back in August 2001.

I will interrupt here my exchange with Bromling to remind readers that Sauron has posted above pictures of modern Tyre, which clearly show that it is far from being the "bare rock" that Ezekiel said that it would become forever. The prophecy obviously failed, but dyed-in-the-wool biblicists just can't bring themselves to admit it.

In the rest of my exchange with Bromling, I addressed more directly the "many nations" aspect of the prophecy.

Ezekiel's prophecy was that Yahweh would bring "many nations" against Tyre,
via the army of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Tyre would be completely destroyed forever and would not be rebuilt. As pictures that have been posted here clearly show, that didn't happen. Tyre was rebuilt and still exists today as one of the major cities of Lebanon.

Can Merrill say, "Prophecy failure"?

If I answer everything in Merrill's lengthy post now, he will have lots of room to wiggle around to avoid what he doesn't want to answer, so I am going to post just my answer to his "many nations" quibble. If he answers the arguments I have presented above on this point, I will then reply to his next point. Concentration on just one point at a time will make evasion obvious to the audience if that point is not responded to.

Javaman

If a link to this 1912 map of Tyre has already been posted in this thread, I'm sorry. It's not especially spectacular but it's a nice addition:

1912 Map of Tyre

(from the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at UT)

spin

As we are quoting things, I may as well post what Josephus tells us in Contra Apion Bk 1 par 21:
Clearly the records that Josephus accessed knew nothing about Nebuchadnezzar raising the city and leaving bare rock as per Ezekiel 26.


spin

braces_for_impact

Is a prophecy really a prophecy when it requires mental gymnastics, equivocation, and an incredible amount of shoehorning to make it fit?

This is no different than Nostradamus's quatrains.

NOGO

Let Ezekiel speak

Ezekiel 27 (NIV)
32 As they wail and mourn over you,
they will take up a lament concerning you:
"Who was ever silenced like Tyre,
surrounded by the sea?"

33 When your merchandise went out on the seas,
you satisfied many nations;
with your great wealth and your wares
you enriched the kings of the earth.

34 Now you are shattered by the sea
in the depths of the waters;
your wares and all your company
have gone down with you.


Tyre, according to Ezekiel himself, was an island.
It was the Island city which was suppose to have been thrown into the sea.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Alexandre.

Sauron

People don't mind long posts. Providing, of course, that they contain real information and not just repetitions of previously refuted claims. Unfortunately, your post is more like the latter description.

Which it does not, for reasons already discussed. Blue text, to illustrate the fact that this answer has been given to you twice already, and you are dodging it:

In v.4, Ezekiel says that the “many nations" will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

Yet, a few verses later in the reiteration found in v.9, we find that Nebuchadnezzar and his armies are specifically mentioned as the ones who will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

So by comparing these verses, we see that both “many nations� and “Nebuchadnezzar� are doing the same actions. By assigning the same destructive actions to both "many nations" (in v.4) and also to Nebuchadnezzar (in v.9), Ezekiel thus does not differentiate between the two terms at all. They are the one and the same to Ezekiel. The second verse reiterates, and amplifies the first one. It is not a different actor; it is more detail on the same actor: Nebuchadnezzar and his armies.

And this is not just my idea; I have also given you a reference of a Jewish rabbi, writing a commentary on this OT book.

Except that the prophecy indicates that both the island and the mainland would be wiped out. That did not happen.

Except that there is no evidence that the island ever sunk, lee. Rubble under the waterline does not demonstrate the island sinking. More blue text, to explain why and to show that you are dodging the refutation of your claim:

1. They could be rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
2. They could be part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
3. Or, rubble from another military event.
4. It could be the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
5. It may even be that the rubble represents an ancient port/dock that fell out of use and was simply allowed to fall into the sea over which it was positioned.

The key difference is that we *know* from other historical sources that items 1 through 5 above ALL happened in Tyre's history. So no special circumstances are required for them. But sad for you, we have ZERO evidence from Tyre's history to support the idea of the island ever sinking. That makes any one of these five explanations more plausible than your sketchy claim.

1. You have not presented any evidence tha the wall was "built to the edge of the sea." Second time I've had to remind you of that. Do you plan to back up your statement anytime soon?

2. In your desperation you are starting to ask patently silly questions. You ask above why would Nebuchadnezzar would use chariots, whether the walls were built to the sea's edge - or not. So your question really is "why would chariots be used at all". Do you not know that chariots were weapons? After the walls fell, there would still be Tyrian soldiers that needed to be conquered.

3. And let's remember - during Nebuchadnezzar's time there was a narrow causeway connecting the island to the mainland. Another good reason to use chariots.

An irrelevant objection. The technique demonstrated in the movie is valid.

Why on earth would you assume that? If they meant digging, they would have said "excavation". Soundings are not only done with echolocation; they also use blast analysis, metal detection, etc.

There are many imaging techniques besides photography - I already mentioned several that you chose to ignore: MRI, CATSCAN, etc. Even bats and dolphins have imaging techniques based on sound. Here; educate yourself - especially the section on pictures.
http://www.lamp.ac.uk/archanth/staff/bates4.htm

Wrong. They do know where these ruins are. I already explained this as well. Time for more blue text to demonstrate to the audience that you are posting, but not paying attention to the responses:

Yes, they would use this technique to find ruins. The technology used to find the extent of the ruins can also be used to verify whether ruins might exist in a new location, or not. And since the technology doesn't require digging underneath an existing business, home, or highway, it's painless and non-intrusive. If they didn't have this technology, then a lot more money would be spent digging up ground that was barren and empty. Most such explorations are funded by grants or international societies with a very fixed budget, etc. so there is a high premium placed on getting it right the first time.

Here; perhaps even your intellect can understand this: imagine this were a search for oil or natural gas, instead of for archaeological ruins. The technology used to find out the extent of a gas or oil field could also be used to verify if a gas/oil field existed in a new, uncharted area. And if that uncharted area were under a major city, then using this technology would prevent interruptions to business, expensive lawsuits, wasted time, etc.

That's why Britannica clearly indicates that "the Phoenician city lies, for the most part, under the modern city." As I said earlier: if you think you know more about archaeology than Britannica, then go ahead and prove them wrong. But so far, you don't even know what a "sounding" is.

Too late. They're already found.

How silly. If finding trash in Boston Harbor does not prove that the harbor sank, then how can finding bricks and rubble in the Tyre harbor somehow prove that Tyre sank? Both items used to be above ground, and are now below water.

Other than the fact that you want to avoid admitting a mistake here, how can you say that it proves sinking in the Tyre case, but not in the Boston case? :rolling:

Ah, yes. The "silted up harbour." It's interesting that you quote the reference from Britannica to try and prove your wishful thinking about the island sinking. Yet the very next sentence in that same Britannica paragraph point-blank refutes your claim:

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

In any event, the French excavation of the Egyptian harbor does not demonstrate anything about the island itself sinking. Excavations of harbors for sunken ships, ancient cargo, etc. happen all the time. Some sections of the Mediterranean are absolutely littered with Roman-era amphorae.


No, it's what the text actually says. Chapter 26 of Ezekiel does use those terms for both Neb and "many nations." There's no reason to assume they refer to two different historical actors here - no reason to assume that whatsoever.

And as I pointed out three times already, I also quoted a Jewish rabbi, an expert on the OT book of Ezekiel, who said the same thing. What have you offered so far, except evasions?

Why? You haven't shown any reason to interpret this in any other fashion. And I've already given you ample explanation for why this term correctly fits Bablyon. More blue text:


Thus it can be seen that Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon was a broad collection of different nations, languages and peoples. (Modern readers of this text are somewhat handicapped by the understanding of the word “nation�. We have grown up with the concept of a nation as a political entity with defined borders, a flag, an embassy and a national anthem, etc. But the nation (or nation-state) as a political entity is not what Ezekiel or Daniel were referring to. In ancient times, a nation referred to a distinct ethnic group, a people bonded together with a common sense of affiliation and a shared language.

Moving along. The point was made earlier that many surrounding nations had been made vassals of Babylon, either through subjugation or treaty. Part of the tribute that such states paid to Babylon was in the form of soldiers, charioteers, etc. provided for her military campaigns. As a result, the empire’s armies were composed of individuals from many different peoples. But all these soldiers served Nebuchadnezzar, the king of kings. The stronger argument here is that Ezekiel was equating "many nations" to Nebuchadnezzar's broad empire, and (by extension) its massive army, composed of many nationalities drawn from all over the empire. Thus, the phrase "many nations" was Ezekiel's apt description of Nebuchadnezzar's huge army--all of whom were to share in the spoils when they cracked open the city of Tyre, the ancient Alcatraz.

An additional historical item that sheds light on the “spoil to the nations� phrase in v.5 is to note the scavenging entourage that accompanied the large armies of the ancient Near East. Whenever a conquering army rolled through an area, it was followed by a contingent of slave traders, professional thieves, and various other unsavory types. The members of this itinerant band of scavengers came from all parts of the ancient world, but had no permanent home themselves. Instead, they existed as vagabonds, camping near their host army and moving with it, as it progressed from conquest to conquest. They followed behind the army almost like vultures following lions, hoping to turn a profit from the destruction. After the conquering army and its generals had taken as much booty and human slaves as they wanted, these scavengers would clean up the rest. In light of this fact, when Ezekiel says that Tyre would become “the spoil of nations�, this is more appropriately interpreted as a historical reference to the destruction first by the conquering army, and then by the rag-tag bands of looters that followed armies around.


Not by Ezekiel, it does not. And that is what you need to prove here - not Jeremiah, or any other prophet. Each bible writer had a particular style. It was not Ezekiel's style to refer to the "nation of Babylon."

Moreover, as noah points out, Jeremiah actually works against you by naming Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon as "many nations" and "tribes of the north." Jeremiah is not your escape hatch here; Jeremiah is the nail in the coffin for your claim.

No one is discounting it. However, showing me that Jeremiah used a particular turn of phrase doesn't prove your claim that Ezekiel intended that same usage. Especially when Ezekiel *never* used that turn of phrase himself.

Scholar folks also know that each bible writer had a particular style and way of phrasing things. Which is why GJn is different from GMk.

And it's ironic to hear you refer to scholars and secondary literature, when you clearly feel free to ignore those sources elsewhere in this debate.

Too bad that you've never presented any "evidence to the contrary." You quoted Jeremiah, in a discussion about what Ezekiel meant. Doesn't work. Jeremiah is not Ezekiel. Nor is Jeremiah a secondary source on Ezekiel.

And I repeat, Ezekiel ALREADY identified "many nations" as being Nebuchadnezzar.
ALREADY.
He EQUATED the two terms in his writing.

The promised punishment (of many nations) is found in verse 3. After enumerating in verses 4, 5 and 6 all the specific destructive acts that these ‘nations’ will do, we see a change of focus in verse 7. In that verse, Ezekiel tells us the “how� behind the destruction, the mechanism by which it is to come about. Note the phraseology, “For thus said the Lord GOD; Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon�. After telling the audience what terrible things will take place, then Ezekiel explains how it all is going to happen.


By use of the word Behold", Ezekiel (claiming to speak for the Hebrew god) is saying "Look and see; this is how I will do all that I have previously said." And it is at this point that Ezekiel explains that Nebuchadnezzar is the divinely chosen instrument who will carry out this destruction summarized in verses 3-6.

Lee, do you understand that Ezekiel's text makes your interpretation impossible?

Certainly. Three easy steps:

1. We are discussing Ezekiel.

2. Jeremiah is not Ezekiel, and is not a "secondary reference" when trying to ascertain the meaning behind turns of phrase in Ezekiel.

3. If you had a 2nd book written by Ezekiel, now THAT would be a proper secondary reference. But you don't have any such book. Done.

*sigh* You agree with yourself. Will wonders never cease?

You copied part of my post where I had copied your earlier claim.

Interesting. You'll have to reproduce the entire article here, if you want to use it. It's a subscription article from Encarta, and I'm not going to pay money just to see the parts you are leaving out.

I will, however, say that the statement "he sold the rest into slavery" is wrong. The historical record shows that Alexander killed 10,000 and sold 30,000 into slavery. However, only *half* the city was destroyed. Moreover, the Sidonians (mother-city of Tyre) transported 15,000 to safety.

And only 18 years later, Tyre was strong enough and important enough that Antigonus tried to siege and conquer it. Hardly the description of a destroyed city, with its entire population sold into slavery.

Oh, and about those secondary sources -- if you actually bothered to use any, you might not have wandered into the colossal mistake you just made, above.

That isn't what the prophecy says. It specifically says:

EZE 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

EZE 26:13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

EZE 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
[...]
EZE 26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

EZE 26:20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

EZE 26:21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

All the underlined sections above never happened. The city is not desolate - and never was.

No guesses from me, lee merrill. Just because your posts are full of guesses does not mean that mine are. It plainly says that only half the city was destroyed -- and it says so, right from your very own source:

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

It is said that Alexander was so enraged at the Tyrians' defense and the loss of his men that he destroyed half the city.

I put it in red for you. Did you see it? :rolling:

You passed over it not because it was weak, but because you got caught posting without thinking carefully. Horses would be needed not only to help bring the walls down, but also to attack and occupy the city after the walls fell.

"Standard procedure"? Says who? You? :rolling:

Give me a break, lee. You don't even know what an archaeological sounding is, and now you want to lecture us on what standard siegecraft tactics were for empires of the ancient near east?

Talk about people guessing. :rolling: :rolling:

I am not stipulating that Ezekiel's description of events here is correct, lee. I know you think it is, but until you prove it, you don't get to use it as part of hte description. But in point of fact, you are wrong. The earlier source I cited about the sieges of Tyre quotes the ancient historian Arrian to demonstrate how horses were used:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

21.1: Engines readied on the mole and on horse-transports Alex had brought from Sidon and on the slower triremes.

21.2: engines brought down the mole, and ships anchored alongside the wall at various points.

21.3: Tyrians shot fire arrows at the ships to keep them back.

21.4: Horse transports and triremes experienced difficulties approaching the walls due to the heaps of stones.

Did it ever occur to you that these siege engines need to be pulled? :rolling:

1. As I said earlier: I am not stipulating that Ezekiel's description of a siege is correct. If you think it is, that's fine. But until you prove it, you don't get to use it as part of the description. Nor do I have to demonstrate how it could happen.

2. Besides, you aren't even thinking critically. Axes? Towers? Axes don't normally get used against stone towers. Axes generally lose that contest. Sounds like Ezekiel wasn't a military expert and screwed up the description of how such sieges occur. Not surprising.

Or maybe he was just guessing - like you, his protege, apparently are. :rolling:

1. First you wanted to know why horses would be used. I told you.
2. Then you tried to claim that horses couldn't be used - then I pointed out the existence of the causeway.
3. Next you tried to claim that there was a "standard procedure" for sieging a city - no proof, of course.

Now you resort to sarcasm - not realizing that the verse doesn't claim anything about horses and axes. But it does tell you what the horses are for, in the very next verse:

EZE 26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

It point-blank tells you how the horses are used, and for what purpose. And this applies to the island city.

1. You wanted a citation for the claim about the causeway. You wanted that citation, because you thought you could claim that Nebuchadnezzar *must* have attacked the mainland since he used horses.

2. I popped that bubble by pointing out that horses would still have been used - they can ride on ships, you know - along with the siegecraft.

3. I also pointed out that the causeway existed during Neb's time. This prevented you from using the horse reference as a way to narrow down Nebuchadnezzar's siege to just the mainland.

Now, apparently, you are pouting. Bottom line: the prophecy said that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the island and conquer it. But history shows Neb failed.

Not so fast there, poptart.

1. You wanted to dispute Britannica's claim that the ruins of the Phoenician city lie underneath the modern city.

2. You tried to dispute this, by claiming they only referenced "soundings" and not actual ruins.

3. But Britannica didn't mention soundings in its article. Ergo, you can't dispute Britannica based upon soundings.

Because the author is not exploring the material from an objective standpoint; the book is written as a defense of bible literalism / evangelical viewpoint. The author is, in fact, not even a historian or an archaeologist. The author, LaMoine F. DeVries, is a Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1565...0M#reader-page

There is no interpretation necessary. The text plainly says that God is using Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish this:

EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

This does not prove anything that helps your argument, though.

1. Unfortunately, McDowell has been refuted a half-dozen times; his Tyre section is especially bad history.

2. Even if McDowell is correct here, having walls out to the edge of the sea does not require a round tip, either. Not sure why you thought that would help you any here.

1. It is? Says who, you? Are you an architect now? In your spare time between being an archaeologist and expert an ancient near east military tactics?

2. We're supposed to take your word that the island sunk, because you can't visualize why a wall couldn't be built out to a jagged coastline. And when asked for the rationale, you respond: "For no compelling reason you can think of."

Even when you yourself admit that you can't come up with a compelling reason, we are supposed to take your word here??

Oh, please. No, all maps plainly show it - no interpretation necessary.

I realize christians love to use the "interpretation" excuse all the time with the bible; are you trying to use it now with aerial photographs and maps?? That sweaty, metallic feeling in your mouth right now is the feeling of seeing your argument go down in defeat.

1. If you knew anything about that book, you would realize that Josh McDowell didn't write it. He handed the hard work over to research assistants.

2. Josh (and his 'researchers') played fast and loose with the facts, got things reversed and even flat-out wrong. There are several rebuttals to "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" on the SecWeb site. There are also several threads in this forum that discuss it.

I dare say you don't know what you're talking about, lee. Stop guessing - you didn't know until my post that Josh didn't write the material himself.

Because I've studied him and this particular chapter of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." He plays fast and loose with the facts. He misquotes people. He quotes people out of context, and confuses statements made about one city with statements made about other cities. It's a riot to watch him wander around a topic aimlessly, making claims out of thin air.

Considering how McDowell (and his researchers) have screwed up their Chapter 11: Prophecy Fulfilled in History, the only way to know what the original source had to say is to use that source directly - and not quote McDowell's version.

McDowell is unreliable. That's why you'll have to use the original sources he quotes, if you want to introduce them to this discussion.


Irrelevant objection. You are forgetting the argument you were trying to make.

1. You tried to claim that when "ancient" was used in conection with Tyre, that it must mean the Phoenician ruins.

2. But the examples of Greece and Rome also use the word "ancient".

Therefore, "ancient" can mean the time of Greece and Rome as well - especially Rome, in the case of Tyre, since there are so many well preserved Roman ruins on the island.

I know you think that. But the text of Ezekiel does not support that interpretation. It is not the "most probable" interpretation; in fact, it is not even a possibleinterpretation. The text prevents that interpretation.

The only reason you think this means more than Babylon is because you know -- from reading McDowell - that Nebuchadnezzar failed to take Tyre. So you are looking for an escape hatch; a way to avoid admitting the prophecy failed. But the prophecy is explicit.


Uh, yes it is, lee. You said that if there were other ruins, then "surely" they would have mentioned it. That isn't true.

What's more, I gave you at least one very good reason why Lebanon (and Lebanese tourism sites) might downplay its Phoenician past. Time for more blue text, since you can't be bothered to read things the first time:

The Christian (Maronite) community of Lebanon has always insisted that it is the descendant of the original Phoenicians in Lebanon. They claim that the Muslim Lebanese are outsiders, and are not part of the original people of Lebanon. National Geographic had a cover article on this issue several months ago, and outlined how this Christian/Phoenician issue has poisoned relations between the Muslims and the Christians in Lebanon today:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/

Fine. The question still stands: why do you insist that such ruins be above ground (not buried, needing to be excavated)? There is no scriptural or prophetic requirement.

Britannica *IS* the reference, Lee. Look for it in this thread again - it references a 1982 population of 23,000.

Yes, you said it - but you are mistaken. They are not trying to locate the ruins. They know where they are, already. They're trying to ascertain which ones are worthwhile to excavate and which ones will be do-able, without disrupting the modern city above ground.


No. *sigh*

PAY ATTENTION.

1. You stated that this technique would not be used for that purpose.
2. I responded that no, you aer wrong - it could be.
3. That does not mean that they ARE using it for finding ruins in this scenario. I am correcting your misunderstanding about how the technology works. That is not saying that the Tyre archaeologists are using it that way. It is dual purpose technology.

Again:
The technology used to find the extent of the ruins can also be used to verify whether ruins might exist in a new location, or not. And since the technology doesn't require digging underneath an existing business, home, or highway, it's painless and non-intrusive. If they didn't have this technology, then a lot more money would be spent digging up ground that was barren and empty. Most such explorations are funded by grants or international societies with a very fixed budget, etc. so there is a high premium placed on getting it right the first time.


Nope; it's still your turn. You claimed the prophecy was correct, and that the rubble in the water was evidence of the island sinking.

1. That is not the entire lesson to be learned from layers.
2. Demolition would leave evidence in the layers anyhow.

Keep looking.


So what? Tyre has always had pointed pieces of land.

You're the one claiming that it had a smooth, rounded area. There is no evidence for that. If you look at the drawing here:



It looks just like this map:

Sauron

Another apologetic source, as opposed to actual objective research?
Why am I not surprised?

We know that Darius I, a.k.a. Darius the Great, was the ruler that took control after Cambyses II and a series of revolts. Darius restored order and created a civil code.

As far as not being a Median - no problem; that only proves that Daniel got it wrong, or was sloppy with the description. Not only that, the historical record shows that the Persians invaded Babylon - not the Medians. (*)

But Darius did rule Babylon in the specified timeframe, so the identification here is intact. As long as you don't mind a few bible errors about the details. :rolling:

Thus the bible account of Darius' age is wrong. Again - still no problem.

It's not the liberal theory that requires this; it's the text from Isaiah that requires this.

Also, quoting from Steven Carr:

Jeremiah 51:28-31 states clearly that the Medes will capture and destroy Babylon. However, it was the Persians, led by Cyrus who captured Babylon and not the Medes. Also, Babylon surrendered. There was no large-scale destruction.

Nonsense. The bible got it wrong. The bible also got the events of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus wrong - or confused the two of them.


1. They still say it about Luke.

2. Hittites? Interesting claim. I'll need the citation that bible critics ever doubted the existence of the Hittites. Good luck.

(*) - yes, I know. Wait for the bait to be taken.