Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 04-11-2005, 01:29 AM

No, the island (and the city on it) did NOT sink.

Only a small part of it sank: this is common to ALL coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Obviously, the part that's underwater didn't get built on subsequently.

Arcaeologists in scuba gear have found a lot of interesting stuff in the harbor of Alexandria recently. Can we therefore say that the city of Alexandria "sank beneath the waves", and is now desolate, "never to be inhabited again"?

Of course not. Both Alexandria and Tyre still exist. The prophecy failed.

If a city can be deemed "destroyed" and "uninhabited" because later buildings have erased most of what was there in Biblical times: then Jerusalem has been destroyed, and will never again be inhabited.

I don't know why you are so fixated on the notion that there was a successful prophecy here: even Ezekiel knew otherwise, which is why he promised Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation (and that failed too).

Jack the Bodiless · 04-11-2005, 01:43 AM

Yes, Tyre proper was the island. The part that lay on the mainland was just an overflow. I suppose a modern analogy would be New York City (on the island of Manhattan) and Brooklyn etc.

I don't know how this helps your apologist, though, as the island withstood Nebuchadnezzar's siege (contrary to Ezekiel's prophecy) and has survived ever since: though subsequently conquered by Alexander, it is still inhabited today.

David Mooney · 04-11-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, Tyre proper was the island. The part that lay on the mainland was just an overflow. I suppose a modern analogy would be New York City (on the island of Manhattan) and Brooklyn etc.

I don't know how this helps your apologist, though, as the island withstood Nebuchadnezzar's siege (contrary to Ezekiel's prophecy) and has survived ever since: though subsequently conquered by Alexander, it is still inhabited today.

DAVID
If you go to Google Images and type in Tyre or Sur (both names mean "Rock") you will find pictures of modern Tyre. Sur is just a different language but it means the same as Tyre. Sur sits on the same piece of land that Tyre sat on, and it is, and has always been, a place to cast nets (that makes sense since it was a seagoing town). It is true there are pieces of old Tyre in the water but they were cast there to get them out of the way as they were building a new foundation for modern Sur. Tyre never did sink as the prophets claim. If you do a google search for "errantyears" (without the quotation marks) and add "Tyre" or "Sur" you will discover this topic has been discussed before on Farrell Till's site. Needless to say the Christian claim that Tyre was an amazing example of Bible fulfillment is shattered.

Amaleq13 · 04-11-2005, 08:37 AM

I have merged the Tyre discussion from "Errors split..." into this thread.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-11-2005, 08:58 AM

I'll repost the links to the Farrell Till / Matthew Hogan discussion on this topic, in the II Library, as they're relevant here.

Farrell Till: Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

Matthew Hogan: Till's Errors Concerning Tyre

Farrell Till: Hogan's Errors Concerning Pronouns

Matthew Hogan: A Straw House Amid 10-Foot Waves

Farrell Till: The Romans, Greeks, and So Forth

From Matthew Hogan's capitulation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Hogan

I have been thinking carefully about the comments you made in response to my article, which dealt with the Tyre "prophecy" (TSR, September/October 1996). Farrell, I agree with you that the Tyre "prophecy" failed miserably.

noah · 04-11-2005, 01:12 PM

Jack the Bodiless, Amaleq13 and David Mooney for your help and info. I'm with you. I didn't quite know why the apologist would make this argument. I thought I would put it up here just in case I had missed something.I see I haven't missed anything. It's just bad apologetics.

Regards,

lee_merrill · 04-12-2005, 06:38 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Jack: No, the island (and the city on it) did NOT sink.

Only a small part of it sank: this is common to ALL coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

But how do we know only a small part sank? Isn't it possible the island part sank, and the causeway remained?

Quote:

Jack: If a city can be deemed "destroyed" and "uninhabited" because later buildings have erased most of what was there in Biblical times: then Jerusalem has been destroyed, and will never again be inhabited.

But Jerusalem is not possibly all underwater.

Quote:

David: It is true there are pieces of old Tyre in the water but they were cast there to get them out of the way as they were building a new foundation for modern Sur.

But why would they throw stones that were used before, into the sea, as part of rebuilding? And why do there seem to be no Phoenician ruins there, except underwater?

Regards,
Lee

Jack the Bodiless · 04-13-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

But how do we know only a small part sank? Isn't it possible the island part sank, and the causeway remained?

...And then the maps and photographs of the island part were faked by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

Quote:

Jack: If a city can be deemed "destroyed" and "uninhabited" because later buildings have erased most of what was there in Biblical times: then Jerusalem has been destroyed, and will never again be inhabited.

But Jerusalem is not possibly all underwater.

Neither is Tyre.

Lee, I honestly don't know how to proceed here. Apparenly you prefer to inhabit a parallel Universe in which the island of Tyre sank beneath the waves. I can just as easily propose a parallel Universe in which the entire city of Jerusalem plunged through a giant sinkhole into an underground lake, and is now entirely underwater.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-13-2005, 01:46 AM

There are numerous photographs of substantial above-ground ruins here.

lee_merrill · 04-13-2005, 07:14 PM

Hi Jack,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

There are numerous photographs of substantial above-ground ruins here.

But those are "Crusader, Arab, Byzantine and Graeco-Roman remains," not Phoenician ones! The Phoenician ruins seem to be missing...

Above-ground!

Regards,
Lee <= Off to do my taxes, will return for a more complete response in a day or two or so...

04-11-2005, 01:12 PM	#16
noah Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 287	Thank you Jack the Bodiless, Amaleq13 and David Mooney for your help and info. I'm with you. I didn't quite know why the apologist would make this argument. I thought I would put it up here just in case I had missed something.I see I haven't missed anything. It's just bad apologetics. Regards,

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

04-11-2005, 01:29 AM	#11
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	No, the island (and the city on it) did NOT sink. Only a small part of it sank: this is common to ALL coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean. Obviously, the part that's underwater didn't get built on subsequently. Arcaeologists in scuba gear have found a lot of interesting stuff in the harbor of Alexandria recently. Can we therefore say that the city of Alexandria "sank beneath the waves", and is now desolate, "never to be inhabited again"? Of course not. Both Alexandria and Tyre still exist. The prophecy failed. If a city can be deemed "destroyed" and "uninhabited" because later buildings have erased most of what was there in Biblical times: then Jerusalem has been destroyed, and will never again be inhabited. I don't know why you are so fixated on the notion that there was a successful prophecy here: even Ezekiel knew otherwise, which is why he promised Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation (and that failed too).

04-11-2005, 01:43 AM	#12
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Yes, Tyre proper was the island. The part that lay on the mainland was just an overflow. I suppose a modern analogy would be New York City (on the island of Manhattan) and Brooklyn etc. I don't know how this helps your apologist, though, as the island withstood Nebuchadnezzar's siege (contrary to Ezekiel's prophecy) and has survived ever since: though subsequently conquered by Alexander, it is still inhabited today.

04-11-2005, 08:37 AM	#14
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I have merged the Tyre discussion from "Errors split..." into this thread.

04-13-2005, 01:46 AM	#19
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	There are numerous photographs of substantial above-ground ruins here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.