John A. Broussard

Phew!!

While I couldn't care less whether Tyre ever existed or is now under a mile of water, your argument is exhaustive, exhausting and--I must admit--very convincing.

I didn't much believe what Lee was saying, but now I feel sorry for him.

Sauron

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Audience: :wave:

I've come to the conclusion that Lee's being deliberately obtuse - I think we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes, unfortunately. He is not sincere about this discussion.

He is instead engaged in a calculated attempt to merely raise objections where he does not read the responses, nor does he even care about the answer - except that it provides the springboard for the next question or hypothetical assumption.

With that clarification, let's proceed.

What it includes today is irrelevant. We aren't talking about today. We're talking about 586 BCE.

No, Lee - that's what you *hope* is the case. But you have demonstrated no such consensus.

What buildings? You've shown no buildings here - as I said: the French excavation is of the silted up harbor. There were no buildings in the harbor; the harbor was filled with water.

No, they are excavating there because the harbor used to be filled with water, but now isn't.

So? The French excavation of the harbor is not connected to the remains under the present town. The French excavation is an entirely separate effort.

As soon as you provide sources for your many meandering claims, then you'll have the right to ask for sources from others. There is no question that *I*, at least, can certainly provide sources for what I post.

No, they are arguing both.

No, they were demosntrating that McDowell (or McDowell's assistants) misquoted the author's intent. Hardly surprising.

Which doesn't help you. Ezekiel does not refer to it by that method. And Ezekiel is what we are talking about. Jeremiah is not a reference for what Ezekiel is thinking or intended to say.

There is no such thing as "biblical usage". Each author is evaluated individually. And since Ezekiel's text "many nations" associates the exact same actions as it does Nebuchadnezzar and Bablyon, they are clearly the same.

And this is not "Sauron's usage". This is what the phrase "king of kings" meant.

I guess it pays to know history. Clearly you don't.

Asked an answered:

So Babylon truly was "many nations", especially since those conquered nations had to provide soldiers as part of the tribute payment to Bablyon.

No, it isn't.

Wrong. Dictionaries are trying to establish how a word is used in common daily life by a large group of people. What you need to do is the opposite: show what ONE particular bible writer had in mind when he used a particular turn of phrase.

Now you're destroying your own argument. You admit that Babylon had many states and vassals, yet you refuse to believe that "many nations" indicated the Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar. :rolling:


As usual, you are confusing two things. That was directed against the ethnic group of Chaldeans (or neo-Babylonians). It was not directed against a political entity called "nation". No such thing existed at that time.

Thus it can be seen that Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon was a broad collection of different nations, languages and peoples. (Modern readers of this text are somewhat handicapped by the understanding of the word “nation�. We have grown up with the concept of a nation as a political entity with defined borders, a flag, an embassy and a national anthem, etc. But the nation (or nation-state) as a political entity is not what Ezekiel or Daniel were referring to. In ancient times, a nation referred to a distinct ethnic group, a people bonded together with a common sense of affiliation and a shared language.

You are confused as to what "nation" meant in those times. See blue text above.

No. Only one. You are confused about what "nation" meant. See blue text above.

It always corresponds to people. The modern concept of "nation" didn't exist until the 1800s.

1st Samuel 9:21 doesn't even use the word "nation:" :rolling:

21And Saul answered and said, Am not I a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? wherefore then speakest thou so to me?

Not as independent armies - but as battalions, or divisions, of the imperial army. They were in the service of the imperial army, as vassals and tribute soldiers. Again: it's nice to know history; but it sucks badly when you don't.

In this debate?
The same one we are having now? With me?
About Tyre?

Nonsense. All you've offered so far is a list of claims, evasions, and what-if scenarios.

You're confused again. The burden of proof to argue for a conclusion is on your back. You are the one with the first claim here.

Aw, gee. Hey everybody: Lee "expects" something. Call the press. So Lee :what would make you "expect" that - other than a desire to duck and avoid the damaging conclusion?

Britannica is a world-reknowned and first rate source for such material. They consult with experts in each field for each article, and it is peer-reviewed by *other* experts before publication. If you think they are wrong on their statement about Phoenician ruins under the modern city, or if you think they have overstated their conclusions, then by all means - prove it.

Your ignorance of the subject matter is not a refutation of their expertise.

No we don't. The tourism website you are ignoring is spot-on target: this is basic Tyrian history; anyone remotely acquainted with Tyre knows this. You just need to educate yourself on the topic, instead of insisting that we spoon-feed you each little tidbit one at a time.

As soon as you provide references for you many wandering claims, then you'll have the right to ask others for the same.

1. It is not evidence that the island sank;
2. Djobeir mentions nothing about the port being on the causeway; why ar you trying to edit his comments?
3. There is no evidence that *any* port was ever built on the causeway

Your move.

1. Your interpretation is impossible.
2. You misunderstand "nations". See blue text above.

No, it means people.

No, it isn't. Scholars do not search the writings of Mussolini to find out what Hitler meant in his diary.

Wrong.

Huh? It did not withstand. It fell.

Not "certain" at all. You've presented no evidence for that. Are you planning on doing so, anytime soon?

Oh, please. What a hypocrite. I've given you far more in the way of responses, than you have given us.

And since your claims are the ones needing substantiation, it is you who ought to be spending time on fleshing out your responses. Burden of proof is (and always has been) yours, not ours.

No, it hurts your argument. Think about it.


Ah, nice try. But since you are the one claiming the validity of biblical prophecy, the burden of proof is on YOU to show a total destruction of Tyre.

It is a historical fact that the island was not wiped out. Which destroys the claim of fulfilled prophecy.

BZZZT. Wrong. The Romans did this. As I said: it's great when ya knows history, but it sucks when ya don't.

Which is the least of your concerns, from watching your behavior. After all, if you cared about "advancing the discussion," you would:

1. educate yourself on the basics of this topic and not insist that other people run and fetch information for you;
2. provide sources for some of your rather amazing claims;
3. pay attention to answers to your questions and not skip over them and repeat the question;
4. ignore refutations to your claims, and then repeat the claim as if it hadn't been refuted just moments ago;

He wouldn't worry too much if some of the raw materials fell into the water while he was hurriedly trying to build the causeway. Nor would he worry too much about how he disposed of the leftover raw materials.

1. Herod's port is irrelevant. Herod's port was in Caesaria, not in Tyre.

2. A port isn't positioned over hte water? Are you sure? Based upon what - your expertise as an architect again? :rolling: In point of fact, the Phoenician port at Carthage was actually over the water. Carthage and Tyre were sister-cities. Just another reason why knowing history is great, and sucks if you don't.

We have descriptions of the city.

Wrong. I provided you with a link that showed soundings being used for archaeology. Go read it.

That isn't what it says. Try again:

http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/
The Roman levels of Tyre are of such importance that every effort has been made to preserve them. To determine the exact location of eariler Phoenician and Canaanite levels soundings are being made throughout the excavated areas.

The fact that they said "To determine the EXACT location..." is significant. It indicates that this technology is being used not to search for something in general (which is your insincere claim), but instead to pin down the location precisely, because the researchers have to work around something else - either the ongoing Roman excavations, or the modern city.

1. Your original claim is that they were all either executed or sold into slavery. I just gave you 15,000 reasons why that claim is wrong. Game, set, match.

2. Seeing that your old claim doesn't have a leg to stand on, your *new* claim is that "no inhabitants were left." But you have presented no evidence that no inhabitants were left. There might have been inhabitants which were neither killed, sold, or rescued by Sidon. If you think that the city of Tyre was totally emptied of people after this, then fine - present proof. But so far you haven't done that.

3. All of which ignores the fact that a person doesn't stop being Tyrian just because they were rescued by a sister city. Moreover, the Tyrians returned, rebuilt the city, and it blossomed again in less than two decades.

You were talking about wanting to "advance the discussion" earlier. In the face of such gross intellectual dishonesty as you just demonstrated above, you are lucky if anyone stops long enough to even give you the time of day. No wonder bible literalist christians have zero credibility.

1. You've presented zero evidence that it wouldn't be probable, and you've presented zero evidence that it posed any kind of engineering or architectural challenge to do so. So you have no basis upon which to make a claim that one is more, or less, probable than the other.

2. You've also ignored "probable" conclusions throughout your entire set of responses to me. So it's a little ironic to see you trying to appeal to "probable" now.

No it doesn't.

1. You've presented zero evidence that it wouldn't be probable, and you've presented zero evidence that it posed any kind of engineering or architectural challenge to do so.

2. We know from history that Tyre made several upgrades to its defenses *after* Nebuchadnezzar, but *before* Alexander. So the state of the walls in Alexander's time tells us nothing about their state in Nebuchadnezzar's time.

What crap. We know he *did* attack the island. He simply failed to take it after sieging it for 13 years. Like I said: it's great ta know history, but it sucks when ya don't.

Only if they were unfamiliar with the history of ancient military warfare - as you are.

Except that only one attacker is identified, and except that the horses and chariots could be applied to the island city as well.

You misunderstand. Either explanation works here, and you have not shown either one to be more probable than the other. Until you do, the explanations have equal probability, and equal possibility.

Says who? You?
What is your evidence for this?

Apparently the ancient military commanders disagreed, since they used chariots in that fashion.


Ya know what? I kinda think that the 13 years of siege had pretty much ruined the element of surprise for Nebuchadnezzar. Not much concern that the horse would "announce the arrival."

Wrong on all counts. Tyre was a major trading facility. If it sank, people would have not only noticed, they would have panicked. It would be the same thing as Los Angeles suddenly dropping off into the ocean and nobody noticing.

And since Tyre was continually inhabited, I suspect the Tyrians would have noticed, too, if they found themselves underwater. Either that, or evolved gill slits.....

Sauron

Well, thanks.

That's probably the only thing I have to thank Josh McDowell for - making me spend the time and effort to research his claims. Not only did it give me a good examination of what a total shyster McDowell is, but I got a pretty decent exposure to ancient history, to boot. If you think his claims about Tyre were exaggerated nonsense, you should see the Babylon claims. :rolling:

Don't feel sorry for him. He's laughing his ass off at us. I suspect that -- in reality -- he's a college kid who needs to write a paper. Lacking the time to research it, he's trying to do it on the cheap: toss out patently absurd ideas on an internet forum, and get people to scurry around and do the research. That way he can get his paper finished, without lifting a finger to do any actual work.

noah

Sauron:

I've come to the conclusion that Lee's being deliberately obtuse - I think we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes, unfortunately. He is not sincere about this discussion.

He is instead engaged in a calculated attempt to merely raise objections where he does not read the responses, nor does he even care about the answer - except that it provides the springboard for the next question or hypothetical assumption.



Couldn't agree with you more Sauron. I've had my suspicions about Lee for the last week or so.
It's clear he just wants to sit here and gainsay us, all the while passing himself off as a serious participant in this exchange.
He neither has the wherewithall to respond or object to any of our arguments
in an educated or constructive manner nor does he feel he has to do his part in this by consulting and citing the necessary sources required for honest debate.
He's been gaming us all along.

badger3k

Perhaps he has, but the rest of us appreciate the effort taken, as well as the information presented.
:thumbs:

noah

Here is the link for the use of chariots in sieges:

During sieges, chariots served two purposes. They were important for blockading the city. Because of their speed, they could quickly get to spots where enemy activity was happening, thereby being able to stop the escape of royalty (such as the capture of King Zedekiah by chariots/cavalry when he attempted to escape Babylon's siege of Jerusalem), and in the same manner, of stopping messengers, thereby stopping communications with allies. The other purpose they had was as a light artillery force. Again, because of their speed, they could dart within archery range, fire their arrows, then retreat back outside of range. The problem archers had on the walls is that the arrows took enough time in flight to reach where you aimed them, that a target with the speed of cavalry or chariots may or may not still be there. The archers on the chariots didn't have that problem. Because the besieged forces can prepare sorties unobserved by the besiegers, whereas those in the city can frequently see where the opposing forces are weakest, sorties can provide the defenders a means of suddenly matching their strongest against the attackers' weakest forces.


http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/238455

lee_merrill

I must say I am disappointed by the level of the discussion at this point, by and large.

Regards,
Lee

gregor

I must applaud the exhaustive and comprehensive deconstruction of the Tyre as fulfilled prophesy clap-trap. I could never hang in there in response to the "just so" stories and excuses of how prophesy could have been fulfilled.

And Lee, I am disappointed at the level of rebuttal posted by you, by and large.

noah

So are we Lee, So are we.
[COLOR=DarkRed]

You have exhausted our patience and made a mockery of the intent and spirit of this forum.
It's clear now that you have not been discussing this subject in good faith.

We're tired of this neverending ferris wheel ride, Lee.

One hint,try a little honest research, Avoid books by McDowel,l Lewis, Strobel, Archer and Morison. Try to keep in mind the progression of the debate as well as the points your opponents make.

If you can't post honestly, don't post at all.

Sauron

"I'm sure they were just assuming that."

"How do you know the walls around Jerusalem were made of the same material as the walls of Tyre?"

"But they built the walls of Jerusalem right out to the edge of the cliff. All those horses pulling chariots - how did they do it? Did the horses learn how to climb walls with their cute little hooves?"

"I once heard that Jerusalem sank in the mud. Chariot wheels would get stuck in the mud, so obviously they weren't used."

"There were two Jerusalems - on in the mountains and one in the valley. Nebuchadnezzar's chariots only invaded the one in the valley."