bfniii

and as i have repeatedly responded, i agree. part of the prophecy was about the physical city itself. however, that is not the focus nor the totality of the prophecy.



wow. this is the most elaborate version of "i don't have a response to your analysis" that i have seen. all along the way, i have made specific points from the original language of the text, history and prophectic precedent. if you don't want to muster a response, then just say so. you certainly don't need to go to the trouble you do in this statement.



that's not exactly what the prophecy says. it appears that you haven't been reading the threads on the tyre prophecy.



i have not read anything that states that sheol was under water only. it appears that the hebrews believed that sheol was under the earth, which does include the waters.



the word "tyre" can refer to a city or a politcal collective. nouns and pronouns are both used in the prophecy. i don't recall doing any "replacing". could you provide some examples?



i have made my case for hundreds of posts in multiple threads. what part do you not understand?

Johnny Skeptic

If you mean according to its former glory, do you have any evidence that it is quite unusual for cities or nations not to be rebuilt to their former glory?

Regarding "a bare rock," you do not have any idea what Ezekiel meant. You have not produced any credible evidence at all what the mainland settlement looked like after Alexander completed his bridge to the island. You have not provided any credible evidence at all that the prophecy was written before the events except to cite Ezekiel 26:1, which is really saying "the Bible is true because it says that it is true." You have not provided any evidence at all that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. When I brought this up, instead of providing the evidence that I asked for, you asked me if I had any reason to believe that the version that we have today is different from the original version. I said no, and that I was neutral, and I asked you if you were neutral. You never answered my question. Please do so.

You asked me what what be acceptable evidence for me. I told you that an appearance by God would be fine, and that a much simpler solution would be some common sense historical arguments from you, which quite naturally you have not provided.

Nebuchadnezzar's involvment is not an argument. Aside from the unresolved issues of dating and possible changes, conquerers do have a habit of conquering, you know. In addition, Tye was located in close proximity to Babylon, and Tyre had great riches.

Regarding the spreading of fishing nets to dry, I would be quite surprised if the Tyrians had not spread their nets to dry. Oh, I know that you be evasive and say that you already discussed these issues, but rational minded people know that you embarrassed yourself.

As I have told Lee Merrill, the ability to predict the future has nothing whatsoever to do with character. Even if God can predict the future, that is not sufficient grounds to accept him because of his questionable character. I am always ready to debate God's character with you or anyone else in a new thread. The General Religious Discussions Forum would be a good place for such a debate. In the past you have shown your reluctance to debate the nature of God, including debating your own personal experiences. I assume that you are still chicken. Is that right? The questionable nature of God is perhaps the main reason why so many people refuse to become Christians or give up Christianity. After 35 years as a fundamentalist Christian, I gave up Christianity because of health reasons.

In another thread, you brought up ontology as a defense for the nature of God without stating any argument at all on ontology except to say that God was perfect. I asked you for evidence that God is perfect, but you refused to provide any, and you did not even define perfect as it relates to God. I asked you on several occasions to state your argument on ontology and the supposed perfection of God, but you refused to do so because you did not want to embarrass yourself. There is currently a thread on ontology at the Existence of God forum, and I bet that you will not make a post there.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,
That the underwater ruins at the sea bottom indicate that the fortress that was Tyre, sank, so part of my argument is to show it to be unlikely that these granite columns and such were there from Alex building the causeway.

Um, it was like 12 AM. But I looked it up, and I was wrong, it was the “Tourism in Lebanon” site I was remembering:

"The most important recent archaeological find is a Phoenician cemetery from the first millennium B.C." Well then, not walls, but a cemetery? I would think actual fortress walls would be quite a bit more important.

And also this, apparently referring to the same place the tourist was: "A short distance from the shore you will see 'islands' which are, in fact, the great stone breakwaters and jetties of the ancient Phoenician port, called the 'Egyptian port' because it faced south towards Egypt."

Note that this page also mentions “government efforts have stopped much of the wartime pillaging that Tyre's archaeological treasures suffered because of economic stress in the area and international demand for antiquities. Grassroots campaigns have also drawn attention to the importance of the city's antiquities,” yet without mentioning “these "treasures … A Phoenician wall, Roman baths, Byzantine mosaics, a Mamluk shrine and remnants of the Crusader castle" as in the Time article, yet they mention these very jetties.

But her book is not intended as a history of archaeology, it is intended as a presentation of the state of archaeology at Tyre, as in her other books on Sidon, etc.

Actually, the text is different, Don, did you not read my comments on this carefully? Here again is what I wrote:

This is getting rather frustrating, I read “Then make your case for this speculation” when I have been presenting my case all along, and I read “How does your scenario fit all the evidence? Please explain yourself.”

Well, my friend, that is what I have been doing, and am still doing.

But the way I hold my scenario fits all the evidence is this: “… if the conclusion about this wall has changed, and your view does not fit all the evidence without saying Jidejian was either uninformed, or careless, or deceptive, all of which I consider unlikely to be true.”

So then which of these do you pick, please, uninformed, careless, or deceptive?

Then your tourist is also one with rabies? But the point still stands very well, that their non-mention of Phoenician ruins indicates something, and the lack of response from the hotel with this claim (they still have not responded), and the lack of any report of Phoenician ruins after hearing that archaeologists set out digging for them where they expected them to be found.

So those Phoenician walls, “Arriving at the beginning of the principal street of the city, is a monument with columns. Under it, two parallel walls, four meters in thickness, and constructed with dry stones, extend beyond the two limits of the monument. These were probably shaved off by Alexander the Great on his seizure of the city. (Chehab, Maurice, Tyre, trans: Afaf Rustum Chalhoub, p53, 1947).

I think I have found the description of this street in Jidejian!

“Systematic excavations were started at Tyre in 1947 by Emir Maurice Chéhab, the first Director General of Antiquities of Lebanon. On the southern part of the island called “El-Karab” (which in Arabic means the “ruins”) fragments of marble columns could be seen half-buried. These appeared to be associated with a porticoed street. Once the fragments were removed mosaic pavement and more columns were uncovered. A double colonnade of cipollino (white green-veined marble) columns almost one meter in diameter were found. Between the colonnades mosaic pavement with a geometric pattern appeared. On a width of four meters there were twenty areas of mosaic pavement. Above the mosaic, marble flagstones had been set in places along the road bordered by the colonnade. To the right of the street stood a large rectangular construction surrounded by five tiers of steps.” (“Tyre through the Ages,” p. 34, 1996 edition).

This goes on for several more paragraphs, and not a word about Chehab’s Phoenician wall, which surely would be considered more important than these Byzantine and Roman ruins. There is even a picture of this area, and a second picture of the columns, a map of the street. And no wall-that-was-Phoenician. I think that might indicate that Chehab’s conclusion has been considered inconclusive.

It seems I must refer you again to my response to Gullwind on this very point. I will post it for you, even:

Not necessarily, did Phoenicians not return afterwards? If so, then they built no wall?

But even if this is a wall that was before Alex, if all the other parts of the fortress are now underwater, I think that also covers the prophecy pretty well.

The other skeptics are insisting that it is virtually impossible that my view is correct, that the island fortress of Tyre could have sunk underwater.

Regards,
Lee

Gullwind

You have referred to your answer to my post several times, but somehow you never replied to my response, which I will repost here:

So how about an answer? Why does the sinking refer to the physical city but never being found does not?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill:

I said:

You replied:

Okay, here is my entire previous post:

You replied:

[quote=LeeMerrill] If it’s underwater now, that’s pretty impressive to predict!

I replied:

You replied:

Now Lee, first you said “If it’s underwater now, that’s pretty impressive to predict!,” and now you are saying “I agree [that there is nothing at all unusual about islets or islands eventually becoming partially or completely submerged underwater], only people here seem to insist this is virtually impossible!” You have refuted your own argument. Will you please explain yourself?

End of previous post.

Didn't you understand what I said? The average sixth grader could. You said that it IS pretty impressive to predict that the island settlement is underwater, but on the other hand you agreed with me that it IS NOT pretty impressive. I said that "oceanographers will tell you that there is nothing at all unusual about islets or islands eventually becoming partially or completely submerged underwater." You said "I agree." In other words, that it IS NOT impressive to predict that the island settlement is underwater. Shall we get a sixth grader and see if he can understand what I said? If so, find one in your church and ask his or her opinion. If something that occurs is not at all unusual, then it is not difficult to predict without divine inspiration, right?

dongiovanni1976x

This is precisely what I am asking of you. Why switch back and forth from Tyre the city, Tyre the culture, Tyre the nation, Tyre the island Tyre the mainland, Tyre the people etc etc etc.
Verse 8 says, When Ezekiel refers to Tyre’s “daughter-towns” he is talking about Ushu/Palaetyrus and other coastal villages under Tyrian suzerainty. In the entire verse he is referring to Tyre. Every pronoun in the verse refers back to TYRE. Your assumption is incorrect if you think verse 8 is referring to the mainland. The religious and administrative center of Tyre was located on the island the mainland Ushu was nothing but an urban center that supplied Tyre with water, burial grounds and timber.


So where am I misled? Bfniii, I am not the one misconstruing the verses. I am reading them exactly for what they say. No where does it say the Tyrian kingdom will not be found again, it speaks of a physical city being laid waste like uninhabited cities, then being covered by water and lost and never found again.

dongiovanni1976x

If what you are trying to demonstrate is that part of Tyre sunk, I have already conceded that. For your convenience I will assert it again, Earlier in this thread you stated that you were not arguing for a temporal sinking of the city but that it “broke off and sunk” and is still lost as prophesized (Ez 26:21, "though sought for you will never be found again". You still believe this right?

A cemetary is a major find. Many people who aren’t engaged in this debate would probably find a wall pretty boring compared to a cemetery. But this is besides the point. Where does this site say the wall I mentioned doesn’t exist or is not Phoenician or does not show evidence of bombardment or is not dated to the 5th century? Answer: No where. Conclusion: Tourist sites are incompetent, inaccurate, unreliable or simply don’t share the significance scholars do with regards to this wall.

Do any of your sources contradict mine? You have one archaeologist who got her degree in Paris, whereas I have The scholar who found the wall, the scholar in charge of Lebanon’s antiquities department- who is acknowledge in your scholar’s book, the lead archaeologist at Tyre, the two leading archaeologist who excavated the site and a respected scholar from Brown University who collaborated with YOUR scholar in her 1992 book.
Now, let us look at this Lee. All my sources are united in saying several things:
1. This wall exists.
2. This wall is Phoenician in origin
3. This wall is from the 5th century
4. This wall shows evidence of bombardment
Conclusion: The wall predates Alexander’s siege and post dates Nebuchadnezzar because Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city in the 6th century BCE, and this wall post dates that time; and Alexander attacked the city in the 4th century BCE which post dates the wall’s construction. Therefore the scholar all conclude that the most likely explanation for the bombardment is that is came from Alexander AFTER the construction of the wall- hence the consensus you have been looking for.
Lee, when I make statements like “the Phoenician wall exists” you correct me by saying that I cannot make such assertions because I have not proved myself. Therefore I prefaced my statement with a conditional because I did read what you wrote earlier but it was most certainly inconclusive as to whether Nina did any actual “updates” which stemmed from further research. I would appreciate it if you held yourself to the same standard that you are holding me to as I have been doing my best to present to you why I believe this 5th century breached Phoenician wall exists. The trivial changes you cited in Nina’s 2nd edition do not resemble anything that was researched and updated. In fact all you need to do is quote the second editions preface that will list the updates. If your copy doesn’t have one then the best assumption is that no updates were done and any changes are likely to be editorial for page sequences, misspellings and possibly even correct misquotes etc…but the burden is upon you to make this case since you want to use it as a reason to discredit my scholars who all agree that eh wall exists even though your one scholar fails to mention it.

That could be because I cannot see things like you do. I am interested in a serious discussion and thus far I feel as though I have made an overwhelming case for this wall yet you still deny it. But the only reason you deny it is because you do not see tourist websites and Nina Jidejian mentioning it. Lee, think for a moment what is more likely…because that is what historians try to do…is it more plausible that Dr. Frost, Dr. Cherab, Dr. Patricia Bikai, Dr. Pierre Bikai, Dr. Joukowsky, Dr. Badawi, Peter Woodward and our mutual tourist friend were all misled or is it more likely that Nina Jidejian was simply either uniformed of the find when she wrote it in 1969 and never added it to her book later? The reason you may be frustrated is that you are experiencing a mild case of cognitive dissonance by holding two conflicting beliefs simultaneously…I suggest you drop the weaker one but you want to hold on to that one too much to do so. That is frustrating- I understand.
Yes. That is why I prefer citing scholars who are experts in their field. I only cited ONE tourist cite because you kept raving about them as if their silent consensus on the subject somehow weighed more.

Yes, lack of information. They apparently have not consulted Dr. Frost, Dr. Cherab. Dr. Patricia Bikai, Dr. Pierre Bikai, Dr. Joukowsky, Dr. Badawi et al…Good observation Lee.
And what about all of my sources that post date 1969, or even 1996 (assuming you meet the burden of proof that such updates and concomitant research was done about the wall)
Ask yourself this Lee…IF Nina knew about all these scholars and their comments on the wall and IF she did updates to her book then wouldn’t you at least think it reasonable that Nina would mention why she DISAGREES with the consensus of all these other scholars…given the fact that no one contests their findings? The fact remains that NINA never says yey or ney about the wall whereas my sources are all of one voice. So to assume that Nina’s deliberate or unintentional failure to mention the wall is unsound unless you have some corroborating evidence to suggest why she did and why those who disagree have a valid case that needs to be heard. Until you provide this, the assumption that this is a 5th century Phoenician breached wall is by far the stronger opinion of the two.
I would think that when someone says that waves would cover the city and the city would be lost never to found again would be understood to mean that waves would cover the city, it would be lost and never found again…but that is just me.

Lee- it is a 5th century wall how could it be built AGAIN in the 4th century?

How?

Sven

I may point out that Lee's "argument" about the walls being not mentioned is a classical "Argument from Silence". Even more interesting is that exactly this is what we get accused of most often by fundies defending the bible, for example when discussing the lack of evidence for the Exodus.

Double standard, anyone?

Johnny Skeptic

Exactly, the mythical plagues in Egypt is a good example. The story, if true, would have quickly spread all over the Middle East and beyond, would have been passed on by word of mouth for many generations, and would have been recorded by a number of historians. Not only hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Egyptians would have witnessed the plagues if they occurred, but thousands of travellers and visitors who would have spread the story when they returned to their home countries.

dongiovanni1976x

I think this is a major misconception that Christian's make. The prophecy doesn't say that Tyre will become some little community where fisherman hang out, rather it says that Tyre will be scraped clean into a bare rock (26:4,14), sink into the waters (26:19) and be lost, never to be found again (26:21)...now when you read Ezekiel 26:5 Since Tyre is lost to the ages (26:21) and is nothing but a bare rock (26:4,14) amidst the sea (26:5), what is meant is that fisherman will use the bare rock to lay nets upon, not even knowing that they are doing it on the once great city of Tyre!
Interpreting this by saying that Is misleading and likely stems from an inerrant position that recognizes that Tyre's large population needs to be explained in light of Ezekiel's predictions. Hell even Jerome had trouble understanding how vibrant and crowed Tyre was in his day.