Sauron

Renumbering or re-arranging the pages that compose the "front matter" is often done by the publisher, as a result of the kind of typesetting process, form factor of the new volume of the book, etc. It also happens when a book transitions from hardcover to softcover, or the other way around. I reviewed several volumes of The Lord of the Rings before buying my copy, and they were all different in this respect. Changes in numbering or preface/front matter do not show that the author has made any updates to the content of the book.

Still no dice for you, lee.

Oh really? Display the two versions here of the Antigonus text here, so we can see for ourselves, lee.

Anyone wanna bet that he won't do it?

Insufficient. Either provide the proof or this is just another one of your claims without evidence.


Except that, as might be expected, your lack of historical experience has tripped you up again.

If you have indeed identified this dig site correctly, then the walls are not Byzantine or Roman. If they were "shaved off by Alexander", per the Chehab book, that means they would have to predate both the Roman era Tyre as well as the Byzantine era Tyre. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been built yet, during the time of Alexander.

Which means that they must be Phoenician walls, lee, since they had to be already standing there already before Alexander's time, in order to be "shaved off" by him. The Romans wouldn't build in Tyre until several centuries later. The Byzantines? Even more centuries after the Romans.

Math is a bitch, ain't it? :rolling:

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, it seems like you simply just like the putatively unassailable ambiguity of Bfniii’s vague approach. Why are you even bothering with your sinking Tyre argument if now all you want to argue is that the “not being found again” refers simply to this mysteriously disappearing culture that ended with Alexander in 332 BCE? If you want to employ Bfniii’s vague approach then you need to forget about this Phoenician wall all together, because it doesn’t matter anymore if you simply want to say that all the references to Tyre being destroyed, never rebuilt and lost forever really only pertain to some symbolic Phoenician culture that somehow did not survive the siege of 332 BCE. This is a completely different argument.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Please reply to my post #419.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, I agree with all this.

No, but I hold it refers most naturally to people, not to geography:

Ezekiel 26:20 … then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living.

Right, because verse 20 refers evidently to people, so we need not conclude that the location of the city being lost was what was meant here.

I agree, but that is another extensive topic, and even if I prove that the versions are identical, and yet the prophecy is wrong, then that makes my proof of the identity of the versions meaningless, as far as believing that Scripture is God’s word, which cannot fail.

So I need both, that the versions we have are faithful, and also that the prophecy did not fail (and also that God inspired it! And that he inspired the rest of Scripture, and that the rest of Scripture was faithfully copied, etc. etc.) and it is impossible to make progress if we focus on all points all at the same time.

I certainly have resolved some of my questions and doubts by posting in these forums. So this skeptic has publicly given up some skepticism (i.e. my thread on Behe).

Actually, I agree that parts of the prophecy specifically predict the ruin of the fortress city of Tyre.

Blessings,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, we agree that we need both, but for years at the Theology Web and at the Secular Web all that you have conveniently debated is whether or not prophecies have failed. Based upon your own comments no one should pay any attention to Bible prophecy until it has been reasonably proven that they have not failed AND that they were not revised. Is that right, Lee?

You have said that you place great importance upon personal experience, but whenever you have discussed personal experience you have quickly left the debates. You are well aware that the nature of God and other philosophical topics are difficult to defend, but unfortunately for you they are the most important topics, in fact much more important than apologetic topics. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years. I gave up Christianity for health reasons. I don’t doubt that the chief reason that people do not become Christians, or give up Christianity, is because of philosophical reasons regarding the nature of God, not because of apologetic reasons.

Regarding your claim that the Bible is God’s word, even if it is partly true, we know that it is not completely true. The Bible itself indicates that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. From a Protestant perspective, Roman Catholics have added to the texts. Even today, with the Bible in every country in the world, it would be easy for some skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, go to some remote jungle regions and deceive some people. The same would have been much more true centuries ago.

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without ever having heard about the Bible, we know that he couldn’t possibly be concerned with an inerrant Bible. An inerrant Bible is most certainly no more valuable than no Bible at all as far as those hundreds of millions of people were concerned.

You can’t be certain that God’s word cannot fail. My position is that if God chooses to send you to hell, which he might do if he judges that you have not dedicated your entire life and possessions to him (possibly he will not be pleased that you have wasted so much time watching sports on TV, and kept too much money for yourself that could have fed starving people), that you would resist him if you could. No one but a mentally incompetent person would willingly endure torture forever. I believe that you would value your own self interest above everything else.

You don’t really care what God’s attributes are as long as you get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life and avoid going to hell. If it one day turns out that God does not have all of the attributes that the Bible says that he has, you would still be quite content as long as you get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life, whether it is provided by the God of the Bible, another God, or even an advanced alien. You would consider that you had made an honest mistake and begin enjoying your comfortable eternal life, but of course, you will not presently concede that some skeptics have made honest mistakes.

dongiovanni1976x

Lee, Do you agree or disagree that Jerusalem was considered the “gateway of the peoples” (peoples being the Jews themselves, that is)?

Gullwind

But verse 20 is part of the reference to the physical city sinking. It's part of the same sentence as verse 19, in fact. It is still referring to Tyre.

Yes, we do, because the focus has not changed. Your own quote shows this. "You will dwell, you will not return." It's still talking about Tyre. You have not demonstrated that the focus ever changes from Tyre, to an aspect of Tyre.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Please reply to my post #425.

Sauron

And lee is also forgetting the National Geographic article. which clearly indicated that the Phoenician genetic marker on the Y-chromosome is still present in the Lebanese population.

So don, if you'll allow me to do the honors....:rolling:

A little background here. Around 1200 BC the Egyptians recorded a group of people they called the "Sea Peoples" appearing in the Levant. That coincided nicely with the time that Phoenicia started to rise in prominence in the Levant, (c. 1100 BC). So there has been speculation that the Phoenicians and the Sea Peoples might be the same group.

In discussing that possibility, the genetic data says.....

"We're not seeing a significant genetic influence from elsewhere on the coastal population in what was the Levant region," says Wells. "The people are very similar to the groups we see inland in Syria and Jordan, for example, suggesting that there wasn't a huge influx of Sea Peoples or others from outside the area. A cultural shift occurred but not a genetic one. Today's Lebanese, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites before them are all the same people."

The impact of the Sea Peoples was cultural, not genetic or ethnic. But they key take-away here is that the people themselves did not change.

So the Phoenicians are still there, lee. And you have presented zero evidence that their culture "mysteriously disappeared".

Your move.:Cheeky:

Sauron

Shameless bump to make sure that lee_merrill sees this.

I've watched you browse the thread twice, lee, without defending your position.