Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

True, Nebby never had a navy and wasn't able to attack the Island Tyre.

Amazing claim. Let's see the proof. The Ezekiel quote is not proof.

Do you have historical proof that Nebby engaged in naval warfare?

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

Hmmm, this certainly does seem reminiscent of Richbee's posts, even the same oversized text with the same repeatedly refuted assertions.

And they're both from Virginia. Gee; what are the odds?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Nope, Nebby apparently didn't have much of a "navy".

But that doesn't mean that he had no boats, rafts etc: no means of crossing water. An army generally doesn't use a "navy" for crossing rivers (and reaching islands just offshore).

It's just that they weren't very effective against an island fortress with walls 150 feet high.

arnoldo · 01-29-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Nope, Nebby apparently didn't have much of a "navy".

But that doesn't mean that he had no boats, rafts etc: no means of crossing water. An army generally doesn't use a "navy" for crossing rivers (and reaching islands just offshore).

It's just that they weren't very effective against an island fortress with walls 150 feet high.

So do you have historical proof that Nebby used boat and rafts to attack the mighty fortress of Tyre?

makerowner · 01-29-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Is all this waffling intended to distract us from the fact that what Ezekiel specifically predicted never actually happened?
.

True, Nebby never had a navy and wasn't able to attack the Island Tyre.

Quote:

In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD (Ezek. 29:17-20).

Yep, even Ezekiel knew that his prophecy had failed. Are you saying that you know better than Ezekiel did?

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Amazing claim. Let's see the proof. The Ezekiel quote is not proof.

Do you have historical proof that Nebby engaged in naval warfare?

You're the one who claimed he had no navy. You made the claim; the burden of proof is on your back.

I'll just repeat what I asked sugarhitman: do you really think that Nebuchadnezzar marched his forces for months across Mesopotamia -- with the express intent of conquering an island city like Tyre -- and then neglected to bring the necessary equipment to do that? How stupid do you think Nebuchadnezzar and his military generals were?

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

The point is that Sugarhitman can not be incorrect, for him, the Tyre prophecy must be 100% correct or his own worldview and belief crumbles since he is depending on the bible being 100% correct. He will do anything, ignore anything, rewrite reality to the unrecognizable just in order to try to squeeze the bible into reality.

Personally, I think he is afraid of himself.

The point is the critics cannot be incorrect, for them the Tyre prophecy must be wrong because if what Jesus and the Bible says is true......

Not really. The critics don't care; there are several parts of the OT that actually ARE correct. It doesn't hurt to admit that, when it's true.

It's just not true in the particular case of Tyre. And since fundies can't tolerate even *one* mistake in the bible, I think it's clear who has the more narrow-minded agenda at work here (hint: you).

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Tyre has always been a "fishing site", but is certainly not a "mere" fishing site. And I doubt that fishing is now the main economic activity of a city of 100,000 people with a not-especially-large port!

And Ezekiel didn't just predict that it would be "diminished by the nations", he made numerous specific predictions that failed.

Why can't you just admit that the prophecy failed?

So your argument is that modern day Tyre is basically the same city/state that existed 4000 years ago?

There is NO city that exists today that is the same as it was 4000 years ago (2600 years ago, actually). The fact that a city changes over time does not fulfill a prophecy that it would be destroyed and wiped off the map.

Way to deliberately miss the point, arnoldo - your desperation level is obviously rising.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-29-2008, 09:56 AM

Historically, ancient armies carried the tools and carpenters to build rafts and similar wooden structures, if they didn't actually have those items with them.

Nebby would definitely have had the means to launch some sort of amphibious assault on Tyre. Though, given the magnitude of the defenses, it's possible that he realized an assault would be futile, so he might have gone straight for the siege option: if so, another failed prophecy for Ezekiel, who describes an assault.

Against fortifications on land, of course, there would have been no problem. His armies could have stormed the walls directly, backed by siege towers etc. if necessary. Hence the absurdity of the claim that Tyre was on the land yet somehow survived for 13 years.

arnoldo · 01-29-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Historically, ancient armies carried the tools and carpenters to build rafts and similar wooden structures, if they didn't actually have those items with them.

Nebby would definitely have had the means to launch some sort of amphibious assault on Tyre. Though, given the magnitude of the defenses, it's possible that he realized an assault would be futile, so he might have gone straight for the siege option: if so, another failed prophecy for Ezekiel, who describes an assault.

It would have been interesting to see a siege against a fortefied Island.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Against fortifications on land, of course, there would have been no problem. His armies could have stormed the walls directly, backed by siege towers etc. if necessary. Hence the absurdity of the claim that Tyre was on the land yet somehow survived for 13 years.

It does seem absurd that Nebby didn't conquer Tyre. It's not like they were heavily defended or anything.

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

01-29-2008, 09:39 AM	#443
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Nope, Nebby apparently didn't have much of a "navy". But that doesn't mean that he had no boats, rafts etc: no means of crossing water. An army generally doesn't use a "navy" for crossing rivers (and reaching islands just offshore). It's just that they weren't very effective against an island fortress with walls 150 feet high.

01-29-2008, 09:56 AM	#449
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Historically, ancient armies carried the tools and carpenters to build rafts and similar wooden structures, if they didn't actually have those items with them. Nebby would definitely have had the means to launch some sort of amphibious assault on Tyre. Though, given the magnitude of the defenses, it's possible that he realized an assault would be futile, so he might have gone straight for the siege option: if so, another failed prophecy for Ezekiel, who describes an assault. Against fortifications on land, of course, there would have been no problem. His armies could have stormed the walls directly, backed by siege towers etc. if necessary. Hence the absurdity of the claim that Tyre was on the land yet somehow survived for 13 years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.