lee_merrill

And I agree! Only that was not Farrell Till's claim, the claim by implication was that one prophecy overturned proves there are no valid prophecies in the Bible, so I prefer to address that specifically, in order not to expand to other topics I think incidental (in this thread) to this claim.

Regards,
Lee

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, thank you for taking the time to make those necessary clarifications. We will be able to refer back to them each time we encounter something a little hazy with regards to what Ezekiel was referring to...The reason I asked for a brief explanation as to why you chose the noun you did in each case, is because I believe EVERY pronoun referred to the insular Tyre, the heart of the Tyrian kingdom...I have demonstrated why and I think if you want to hop back and forth between the two you should provide your reasons why the verse(s) should be read in that light.

Here are some of my questions and concerns:

If the administrative and religious center of Tyre was located on the island, then why would Palaetyrus/Ushu be the possessor of any “daughter-towns” whatsoever? And more importantly, doesn’t the distinction, “her settlements on the mainland” seem to further support that Ezekiel is referring to the island “amidst the sea”? What good reason(s) would you have for believing this to be Palaetyrus?
Tyre was famous for its walls, Palaetyrus/Ushu, on the other hand never withstood a single attack in recorded history. So what good reason do you have to suggest that this verse is referring to Palaetyrus/Ushu?
Is it the case that you believe that Insular Tyre, the seat of the King and the most ancient Temple had no streets?
So the seat of the King, his Palace and the world renown Temple had no wealth, no fine houses, but this suburb called Ushu or Palaetyrus by the Greeks, which Ezekiel himself informs us that Nebuchadnezzar got no wealth from (Ez 29:17-18) was in sole possession of the Tyrian kingdoms wealth and fine houses- What good reason do you have to think this was what Ezekiel was thinking when he wrote this?

One final bit of clarification: I assume you take the position that Insular Tyre was the only portion of Tyre that was to have the ocean cover it, never to be rebuilt or inhabited again etal…and that if this area of land was found above sea level with successive layers of inhabitants and buildings built one on top of the other like all ancient cities that are continuously occupied (i.e. Rome etc) then you would concede that this prophecy failed?

I ask this because I want to clarify the terms involved in this prophecy (which we are currently working on with the pronouns) and then establish firm goalposts for each of us as to what is necessary to make our respective cases.

It is the exception, rather than the rule in history, for a city to never be attacked or befall some natural disaster in its history. It is also the exception rather than the rule in history that a powerful city in its zenith to be conquered than for weaker cities to be conquered. Threrefore to make this prophecy significant it would require that the impregnable city of Tyre be taken than for its mainland possession Ushu/Palaetyrus, which never withstood an attack/siege in all recorded history.

A prophecy that claims that a unspecified number, of unspecified nations, attacking over the course of an unspecified time in the unspecified future is very unspecific. So if no one but Nebuchadnezzar is specified in the prophecy then any appeal to some other unspecified nation or unspecified king attacking at some unspecified time will render this prophecy unspecific.

Likewise, given the amount of time for the supposed fulfillment of this prophecy, in light of the fact that it is the exception, rather than the rule in history, for a city to never be attacked or befall some natural disaster, it would render this prophecy insignificant. So Tyre must be attacked in a timely fashion and not over the course of centuries.

If I then demonstrate that Tyre (the island with the seat of the King’s Palace and the home to the ancient Temple of Heracles) is above water and is the fourth largest city in Lebanon, and thus has inhabitants and buildings, (contrary to what Ezekiel prophesized) then this makes this prophecy “unfulfilled”.

Therefore your goalposts are to demonstrate that a specific king attacked a specific city in its zenith at a specific time and specifically carried out in accurate detail those things that were prophesized to have occurred.

Jack the Bodiless

That was me IIRC.

Why does it matter that Tyre "could have" sunk, when in fact it DID NOT sink, as was PROVED by the many photographs of it?

As I pointed out on the previous thread, Gleason Archer (still the ONLY source of any claim that the island of Tyre sank AFAIK) almost certainly blundered and identified the wrong island as Tyre.
Why are you making such a big deal of Jidejian's use of the word "ruins" rather than "rubble", and then quoting Jidejian's description of stuff "strewn across the sea bottom" (i.e. as loose rubble, NOT standing ruins)?

Alexandria is another example of an ancient city with a LOT of stuff strewn over the bottom of the bay (including the remains of the Great Lighthouse), but it doesn't signify that Alexandria "sank".
So, you admit that the northern harbor is still in use. And the photographs and maps show that the northern harbor isn't on some sort of tiny remnant, there's a whole lot of land to the south of it (the former causeway is off to the east of it).

So, the strongest point in favor of the view that the island did not sink is the fact that it's still there. Isn't this a rather HUGE problem in your scenario?

Previously, I compared the destruction and sinking of Tyre to the destruction and sinking of Manhattan when Osama Bin Laden obliterated that island in September 2001. Would you say that the ongoing existence of Manhattan is "the strongest point in favor of the view that the island did not sink", but it's still possible that the island DID sink? Or would you feel that the ongoing existence of Manhattan is such GOOD evidence for its non-sinking that NO case can be made for any other conclusion?
...But why? You were defeated then, and you will be defeated again now.

dongiovanni1976x

Why can't I get my images to show up?

Anyhow, Lee...Site #7 on the map is where Dr. Bikai did most of her excavating...see link below

http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43eca76...LZIaEBJ_gwbx4P

And in the next picture you can see a layout of the elevation of the land making up Tyre...the island is the promontory jutting out where indicated by the name "Tyre" and the causeway connects it to the mainland...this gives you an idea of the make up of the land and the out line of the old island, the causeways and the coast.

http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43eca76...jiIaEBl2N_BrlV


again I post from google to compare and contrast the above image so you can see that the shape of the pennisula matches that of Dr. Bikai's scetch. Noted on the google image is the Sidonian and Egyptian harbors so you can see how they line up with the aerial photograps I have shown.

http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43eca76...LZIaEBX3tX9Dlw

dongiovanni1976x

Lee,

A report by Helga Seeden, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Beirut in Lebanon, in August of 1990 entitled, "Tyre Summer 1990: An Eyewitness Report" says that, Dr. Seeden obtained her Ph.D. from the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London.

This is further evidence, in addition to the Sidonian port and the images, both aerial and satellite that the island is at the west end of the causeway etc and is not submerged under water never to be found again as you and Mr. Archer assert.

MiddleMan

That may be. But a hell hole is still more than a "bare rock" and thus the prophecy failed.

I mean, that's pretty easy for even lurkers to understand.

Sauron

He's doing it, hoping that everyone forgets that he was already refuted in his attempt to create fictitious distinctions between "ruins" and "rubble."

Yes, I am watching.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Oops, by "P" here I meant "settlements on the mainland," not "her" as in Tyre-the-island. I was unclear here, my apology.

They withstood Neb for 13 years, though, did they not?

No, it's just that I take the reference here to continue to refer to Ushu, and thus to her streets, and not the island's.

Well, plundering their wealth doesn't mean they were especially wealthy! But there probably were some fine houses in both places.

Yes, that is position 1...

Actually, I would then reexamine position 2, that "built no more" doesn't mean (as indeed it need not) never ever again.

Well, if both these positions fail, then I will punt. You win, then...

It was, though...

I agree, I am not insisting here that this is unlikely to happen, only that it did happen as Ezekiel said.

God does not, however, seem to restrict himself to making only unlikely statements. I thought the Spurs would do well in the NBA playoffs! This, though it seemed probable, has not (so it seems) turned out.

May I then specify your goalposts? But how about if we seek to reach agreement on them instead, I would prefer setting out to defend the two above propositions? Which indeed would involve arguing that the prophecy was carried out in accurate detail.

Erm, a photo labelled "Tyre" does not prove that was where the island fortress was!

Judges 1:23-26 When they sent men to spy out Bethel (formerly called Luz), the spies saw a man coming out of the city and they said to him, "Show us how to get into the city..." He then went to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city and called it Luz, which is its name to this day.

So then how is it that others cannot be wrong? But I do still wonder why a map of island Hercules having sunk near Tyre is not a point in my favor.

Because Jidejian calls them ruins? But rubble could make my point as well! How did rubble such as marble columns get into a harbor at the sea bottom?

Yet this would seem to explain those ruins at the bottom of the harbor: "With a height variously estimated at between 117 and 134 metres (440ft) it was the tallest man-made structure on Earth for many centuries ... It ceased operating and was largely destroyed as a result of two earthquakes..."

I would expect those Phoenician marble columns were not so tall. What other stuff is strewn over the bottom of the bay, though?

Not for now! I am saying this is good reason to believe it has been identified, and if this is true then my position 1 is done for, and thus I argue against this point.

If we find ruins of building pillars at the bottom of the Atlantic, and no American ruins below ground where the current city is. I then think it is may be probable it sank.

I have seen such pictures, now does it look like part might have broken off? Indeed it does, Tyre does not look like Florida.

Yes, Jidejian has maps showing harbors as well.

Yes, but the Phoenicians I think were not Muslims!

And hi, Mr. Sauron...

Blessings,
Lee

dongiovanni1976x

That seems highly improbable. #1There is no evidence of a walled city on the mainland and #2 there is no historical evidence of Ushu ever withstanding a siege of any kind.
Remarking about the many times Tyre was attacked leading up to, and including Nebuchadnezzar, Maurice Cherab, the Director general of Antiquities in Lebanon says,
What evidence do you have that Nebuchadnezzar besieged the mainland for 13 years? Why would he bother if all the wealth and the religious and administrative centers were located on the island? Just like all those conquerors before him, he likely took Ushu and tried to starve out Tyre but couldn’t because it was supplied by sea.
So again..what evidence do you have that Ushu withstood Nebuchadnezzar for thirteen years?



Why? For what reason do you take this reference to refer to Ushu and not Tyre? Especially inportant is the fact that you say continue - by that logic it begs the question why you hop back and forth between Tyre and Ushu through chapter 26...this is precisely why I asked for a brief explanation of your choice and not just an arbitrary, (or actually an intentional reading to see what fits the prophecy best) guess.
But again, why does verse refer to Ushu and not Tyre…was Ezekiel referring to Ushu or to the arrogant and wealthy citizens of Tyre? I just don’t understand your reasoning here…
Not by who Ezekiel said it would be. As soon as you employ the “many nations” argument you make this prophecy both insignificant and unspecific. It becomes insignificant because it is the exception rather than the rule that a city would befall disaster given enough time- we are talking over two centuries here! And when someone doesn’t specify who will attack this city, doesn’t specify WHEN such an attack will take place and only makes a dire vitriolic prediction of its fall- we can say that this prediction is unspecific.

Here is further evidence that the area south of section 7 on the map I showed you (where Dr. Bikai did most of her excavating) has Phoenician remains:
Standing on the edge of the island perimeter, where you and Mr. Archer believe was just the end of the causeway where the island broke off and sunk, Peter Woodward, host of the History Channel’s documentary, “The True Story of Alexander the Great”, says, He points to a large cavity in the earth below the Roman remains, The narrator’s voice then takes over as we see Peter Woodward walking with another gentleman, the narrator informs us, pay attention here Lee, Why below sea level you may ask…? Dr. Badawi explains, By establishing a foothold so to speak and then having a good standing with which to hammer away at the wall as if it was a land siege etc. Peter Woodward later climbs down into the excavated area of the Phoenician wall and stands in a small breach in the wall recounting the events near the end of Alexander’s siege. One of Alexander’s commanders was cut down and, To further corroborate this account I offer you Dr. Honor Frost who found this wall in 1966 as recorded in Chapter 3, “History of Excavations” of Martha Joukowsky’s, “The Heritage of Tyre” 1992 p. 33. Dr. Patricia Bikai informs us that it was near a burned fluted-columned Hellenistic structure where the two 5th Century parallel walls which showed “evidence of bombardment” were located. (ibid)
In addition to this major Phoenician find we have Dr. Denyse Le Lesseur who found Phoenicia-type jar handles and part of the ancient city on the south coast of the island. (Ibid, p30)

So now you have your evidence of Phoenician pottery fragments, part of the ancient city and the breached portion of the island’s wall where Alexander himself led the assault into the city. All visible- in fact I just watched them about five times so that I could quote verbatim what was said in the documentary.

dongiovanni1976x

You are right Lee. Dr Jidejian also says confirms that the island did not break away and her assessment agrees with what I stated:

I only pointed it out to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that the island is at the far west of the causeway/peninsula. If it had broken off as you assert then the Muslim mosques mentioned could not be standing anywhere on the island perimeter unless they too were under water.