noah

Wow Lee. I have to say, your capacity for taking a pounding is remarkable.

If I have a concern here, it's that Sauron will tire of pounding your "points" into mush.

meforevidence

Thanks, I hope this works.


Dang Sauron. I have to admit you are intelligent and bull-headed. I do disagree with so many things you say but I appreciate your studies and I have learned from you as well. I hope I never made you upset. I am sorry I have not been on for awhile. I was in a car wreck and just needed to take a while to recoop.
I intend to butt heads again soon, but I am getting ready to head home early today.

Take care, Billy

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Back from thunder and lightning, my phone line going out, and fixing someone else's modem that went snap, crackle, pop.

A will do X, B will do X, or A implies X, B implies X, so then A equals B? That's not good logic...

Your conclusion has proved your premise here! Let's turn the flow the other way...

But why, may I ask, should we conclude that Alex did not need these stones for the causeway, and carried them up to the island, and then threw them in the ocean?!

My point depends on what you said being true, though. I agree!

But you have the book! The map is on page 12, "Tyre Through the Ages," and much of the coast is indeed loose sand.

Well, yes, this is my view, but this is saying my view is absurd because [and then restate my view]. But this does not show why my view is absurd.

I think these are conclusions, though, and not arguments...

Sure he would worry! If he is rushed, delays will upset him, and military commanders have unsloppiness as a priority, thus the marching in ranks, thus the starched uniforms, and spit-and-polished ... sandles!

Well, no, "Ruins are categorized on a four-point scale. ... At Canyons of the Ancients, Jacobson hopes to follow the strategy of drawing visitors to a few major sites and leaving the rest, most of which are unimpressive rubble mounds, to the adventurous to find."

This does not say there are ruins there! It says there is rubble there, and they do not assign one of these points on the scale to the mounds.

You can indeed see the whole wall from any point on it, which is a good reason to not make bends in the walls.

I'm still waiting for the reposting of those links! I don't remember these links, I must say, as well.

Would anybody else like to point me to them? Noah?

I don't think this is at all possible, to detect a Phoenician wall (or column!) underground, with sound waves, or any other kinds of waves!

This is not a refutation, though, and I think this point is actually rather plainly true.

Then apparently we can't tell a colonial brick underwater, I agree! And I don't hold that bricks prove a place sank, ruins may indicate that, though, colonial ruins would indicate this, underwater.

Ships don't sail over piers, though! And why is a ship (from Egypt?) a ruin of Tyre? Piers might be, but if they were wood, they wouldn't last at all underwater, if they were stone, why would they sink? But maybe the ground level sank!

No, "built more" was at issue, not "rebuilt," and all the building there was indeed stopped.

And this, again, fits with the above interpretation I am presenting.

But then this implies that Renan was mistaken about the current state of the city, when he saw it! This has nothing to do with the state of archaeological techniques at that time.

I didn't say proof! Evidence, and more than just this piece of evidence is required, and yet it is evidence.

I agree! Not proof, evidence...

Well, yes, but if your neighbor's house sank, and we find remnants of your house below ground level, we may indeed consider it possible that your house sank, too.

Regards,
Lee

Diogenes the Cynic

Alexander had to make two attempts at the causeway. A good portion of the first one was destroyed by a counter attack from the island and Alexander had to start over. It would not be surprising to find some of the rubble from the first causeway sunk in the strait and it goes without saying that said the material from the destroyed first causeway would have come from the mainland.

Gullwind

You seem to be omitting the tactical advantages of a curved or angled wall. An irregular wall allows the defenders to fire at attackers from multiple directions. For example, Fort Ticonderoga was intentionally built in a star-shape for specifically that reason. Any attackers that made it to the base of the wall could be attacked from two sides. In other words, there are very good reasons to build a defensive wall with bends.

yalla

I am amazed, even allowing for sidetracks and tangents, that the dispute over the "destruction" of Tyre, can go on for 9 pages when to me, as a lurker, it's continued existence has been clearly established.What does it take to convince some people? In the words of Monty python...."it's bleeding obvious" Tyre survived it's alleged destruction.

Diogenes the Cynic

I agree, but the counterargument seems to be that we can't prove Tyre didn't sink beneath the waves and that the Tyre that's there now is some whole new island. I don't know how anyone is supposed to fight against logic like that.

The other argument I've seen on apologetic sites is to try to redefine Tyre only as the city from pre-Alexandrian times and then to argue that "Old Tyre" has never been rebuilt- an unbelievably sophist argument which can, of course, be applied to any other city from antiquity, including Jerusalem.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

That's a good point, that would explain rubble out in the harbor, I agree. But not ruins!

That's another good point! This is refreshing. But I don't think this could apply to Tyre, which was said to have walls build to the edge of the sea, it would be odd if the coastline matched their defensive intentions so well.

I actually changed my view! After reading my Nina book, with the part about the ports being found. Sorry I didn't make that clear, I now am proposing that the walls went down, parts of the city (the pride of Tyre, their fortifications) went underwater, and the city was destroyed.

Then it could be rebuilt...

Regards,
Lee

Gullwind

No one said it did. The mention of Ticonderoga was simply to point out that there is a very good reason not to have nothing but straight walls in a fort.

In addition, if your building on an island and you want the maximum amount of space inside the walls, not to mention you want to deny an enemy room to land an attacking force on the island, building the walls to the edge of the sea would be the way to go.

Sauron

Ezekiel equated them. Your lame attempt at logic ignores the nature of two things being equated. So "nations" cannot continue after Nebuchadnezzar, unless Nebuchadnezzar himself continues after that point. But that didn't happen; Nebuchadnezzar did not make any further attacks on Tyre after the 13 year siege.


Nonsense. My conclusion is a set of two facts:

(1)Alexander did *indeed* built the causeway, and
(2) he obviously did *not* use the stones you are referring to, since they are in the water and not in present in the causeway.

Maybe he had too much material, and once he finished the causeway he hastily chucked the surplus into the water to clear the causeway for his troops.

Maybe he spilled some of the material during construction - easy to do, with Tyrian arrows flying all around -- and it was easier to get material from the dry mainland than to send people underwater to try and salvage the spilled material. Unless you want to try and convince us that ancient Macedonians had underwater salvage techniques? :rolling:

In summary, your newest ad-hoc assumption that Alexander ought to have used these stones -- instead of leaving them in the water -- falls apart with even the briefest of inspections.

And this, of course, ignores the other more plausible scenarios I presented, any of which are more plausible than a sinking island:

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.

You've tried to focus in on only the 2nd item above - but there are four others. All of them have historical supporting evidence. And -- unlike your 'sinking Tyre' idea -- none of these four ideas above requirea a magical event that left behind no supporting evidence.

Which means your line of argument based on that point is a dead-end.

You're trying to pull a bait-and-switch again. How utterly dishonest of you. In your original comment, youdid not say that the coast is "loose sand". You said something different. Your original words were:


And if they are visible from the sand line, which is much of the coast,

The sand line is the result of Alexander's causeway, as we just got through establishing above. That is not the same thing as the loose sand that forms on *any* coastline - which is what you're trying to change your position into right now.

Sorry; I was working off the assumption that you were reading my posts. I should have remembered that you rarely do.

I didn't merely re-state your post; I already indicated why your view is absurd in my post of June 2nd. From before:

In the "pre-sinking" era of Tyre, the columns are on the wrong side of the port. They should be north of the port, not south of it. Unless you want to explain why the Tyrians would have created a port *on dry land* between the island and the columns. :rolling:

So what's your explanation, Lee?

Arguments? You've presented no evidence to refute, lee. You've conjectured that the modern view of the ancient coastline is wrong. But you're dead empty on supporting data. Given the paucity of your position, my comments are a summary of:

1. your claim that current views of the ancient Tyrian coast are wrong;
2. viewed in the light of your total lack of supporting evidence for said claim

I can see you have no military experience. And apparently have never read any of the first-hand reports of how soldiers and/or commanders have to do the best they can under fire. In such scenarios this precise thign happens: materials, etc. are used / forgotten / wasted / tossed out in mass, in order to meet the military goal.

Ranks, uniforms, etc- you are also talking about modern military units. You have a knack for forgetting the chronology of the situation, or substituting later chronologies for earlier ones.

Moreover, your concern about sloppiness doesn't refute my point. Alexander tossing rocks into the water isn't gonig to impair the military readiness of the causeway, nor is it "sloppy" as long as the rocks don't block the military units. Which, by tossing them into the water, kinda ensures that they aren't going to be obstacles.

Again: you are making up any old what-if objection you can, in this little game of yours. But none of these objections stand up to even the briefest inspection.

Yes, it does. As usual, you don't read worth shit. And you edit things out that don't help your argument. Here is the entire paragraph, without your editing (behold the truthfulness of Christians)

Ruins are categorized on a four-point scale. Class 1 contains sites that are widely known, Henderson says: "We readily disclose them to the public; they have a long history of tourist use." Class 4 sites are so fragile they’re officially closed to visitation. "We withhold information about them from the public, and even from park staff. If people find them on their own, that’s fine," Henderson says. Only Class 1 and Class 2 sites are depicted in park brochures and trail guides, he says.

The unedited paragraph says it all. These unimpressive rubble mounds are the class 4 ruins that are officially closed to the public, but can be found by the adventurous.

Don't be deliberately dense.

And in addition to this one particular example, I also pointed out Jidejian is counting the fact that the Egyptian port is part of the "ruins" of Tyre. Much of the Egyptian port is either underwater, or mired in muck or sand.

No. You cannot. Think about it.

Better yet, get out a crayon and some paper and draw a picture of a fort. Then tell me if you can see the whole wall from any point on the wall.

1. They are in the thread, so there is no need to repost them. In fact, they were posted more than once. You merely have to get off your lazy ass and read the thread - or just give up the little game you are playing.

Apparently neither course of action is very likely, though.

2. The fact that you dont remember the links surprises no one.

3. I remind the audience that lee's assertion about the resolution of the geologists implies the available resolution with sound waves for anyone is just more asserted hogwash.

Why should noah help you? They are in the thread.

And as I said before: no one cares what lee merrill "thinks". Lee merrill has demonstrated in this thread that he tosses out opinions about subjects he knows zero about. A partial list includes: ancient military warfare, ancient civil engineering, ancient maritime navigation, archaeology, and ancient history. So what lee merrill believes, or disbelieves, isn't really germane to the discussion.

1. You don't understand the value of pottery - that is the refutation in itself.

2. The fact that you don't understand the value of pottery in this area of investigation is sad, but not my fault - nor is it my job to remedy that defect in your education.

3. Your claim is not "plainly true".

Lame. I did not say that. What I said is that whether it is colonial or not is irrelevant to the point being made. You dodged, but the point still hits you:

1. You tried to claim that rubble in the water proved (or is evidence) that a city sunk.

2. I provided you with another example of rubble in the water.

3. Therefore by your crippled logic, Boston also sunk. And Seattle. And Tokyo. And San Francisco. Either it works for all these places, or it doesn't work for any of them.

Game, set, match.

They do, if those piers are underwater because they fell from disuse, or were superseded by larger, better piers. Lake Washington in Seattle has several piers and docks that sank. Ships today sail right over top of them. Happens all the time.

Next handwave.

1. Who said the ship was from Egypt?
2. Ships are part of the wreckage of the port. This is standard; what a silly objection to make. But then again, we know that you aren't objecting because of an honest misunderstanding, you're only trying to delay the checkmate you find yourself in.

No matter.
http://phoenicia.org/wreck.html

Phoenician Ship Wreck:
Teaming up to find ancient mariners

By William J. Broad
The New York Times

The Phoenicians were the master seafarers of antiquity, the first to knit the Mediterranean into a trading state. Contemporaries knew them well. Homer derided them as "greedy rogues," and the Bible praised their ships of oak and cedar as works that "did sing."

But modern scholarship knows little of the vanished people and almost nothing of the empire's basis, its merchant ships. No ships that are clearly Phoenician have come to light and only a few images of the trading vessels have come down through the ages.

Now, however, the cold depths of the Mediterranean have yielded a bonanza that might change all that -- if archaeologists and treasure hunters can agree to work together.
[...]
For decades, archaeologists and treasure hunters battled one another over shipwrecks in shallow waters. Both sides could visit and excavate the ruins by means of relatively inexpensive scuba gear, which allows divers to go down 100 feet or so.

Notice that this isn't just about any shipwreck, it's a Phoenician shipwreck. And clearly referred to as ruins.

But go ahead - keep embarrassing yourself, Lee.


1. Who says they were wooden piers?
2. Who says the ruins in the water are wood in the first place?
3. Stone sinks if it is tossed into the water.

1. Doesn't matter. The ponit still stands. At the time the prophecy was uttered, Tyre was a complete city and did not need to be "built more". So you pointing out that the Tyrians "built more" after Nebuchadnezzar doesn't help your argument - it only helps mine. Why? Because it shows that no matter which term you use (built more / rebuilt), the prophecy fails. :rolling:

2. The building was not stopped, and you have no evidence to show that. If you think you do, go ahead and present it.

Still squirming?

No, it doesn't fit in with your interpretation. You are presenting an interpretation where you're trying to claim the prophecy is true. The fact that *any* rebuilding occurred shows that the prophecy was invalidated.

You're really having a hard time with chronology, aren't you?

1. It does not imply that Renan was mistaken about the current state of the city. Renan never saw the current state of the city - he saw it over 150 years ago.

2. The logic mistake you made is pretty appalling. If Renan had made a historical mistake about the events of 13th century Tyre, that implies zero about Renan's accuracy on the state of the city when he saw it five centuries later. How laughable. That is like saying if we have a modern American who believes a mistake about the history of the settling of Boston, that somehow implies that they are mistaken about the current state of the city of Boston. Nonsense. And yes, this really isn't relevant to the discussion - but I wanted to point out the logic mistake, because it's pretty elementary, and yet you didn't correct yourself before posting.

3. The Tyre that Renan saw was not in the same state as the Tyre that was ransacked in the 13th century anyhow. Tyre had been expanded under the Ottomans.

Says who? You? Jidejian obviously felt the need to point out that Renan's field work explorations were not sicentific in nature. Let's review Jidejian's comments about Renan again, just to refresh your memory and remove the wiggle room you're trying to create for yourself:

Renan published in 1864 the results of his excavations at Tyre, Sidon, Jebeil (Byblos) and Aradus. Although the scientific method of modern day archaeology was not applied in his day, Mission de Phenicie has preseved interesting information for the historian and archaeologist.

Renan's work was antiquated and not conducted according to scientific standards. You wanna pretend that doesn't matter? Fine. But if that fact is irrelevant to the discussion of Renan's findings, then why would Jidejian have ever brought it up? Why character assassinate Renan for no reason?

Simply put: you're guessing again - and doing a very bad job of it.

1. It isn't even evidence of sinking. It isn't evidence of anything at all, because you have failed to demonstrate any connection to a sinking event.

2. Your objection doesn't get you any mileage either. Let's substitute "evidence" for "proof" in my rebuttal to you. Now let's have a look:

Seattle also has a fault line. By your intellectually lazy standards, that is "evidence" that Seattle sunk, too.

Nope. Presence of a fault line is not "evidence" of Seattle sinking, nor is it "proof" of Seattle sinking.

But there are no remnants of my house below ground level. There is only a natural depression in the front yard where the former tenants of my house dumped some trash.

This trash fascinates my nutcase neighbor, who thinks my front yard used to be a hill instead of a depression. But even after repeated requests for geological proof of that idea, he still can't seem to come up with anything.