Sauron

<edit>I left nothing out. Unfortunately, that is not what you originally said. Since you can't remember from one day to the next what your claims are, have a look:

and no American ruins below ground where the current city is.

I left nothing out. You inserted a new requirement, one that got left it out of your moving definition - not suprising, since you have roller skates on the bottom of your goalposts. But in reality, it doesn't matter. Don't you remember the Britannica quotation? The one that clearly indicates ruins below ground where the current city of Tyre is?

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

Your criterion is satisfied - at least your current one is satisfied; I'm sure it will change now.

I know quite a few things. Before you start claiming that a prophecy is true, you need to educate yourself to at least that same level, since you have the affirmative claim and the burden of proof.

<edit>There are such ruins, and you have heard of them. I know this, because I told you about them in our earlier exchange. Remember the quote from Britannica?

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

Well, in point of fact you base your "conclusion" upon a deliberate decision to ignore the evidence. But let's see what your rationalizations are. Anyone care to be that they are the same ones that were shot down in our earlier thread?

Already shown to be a false claim, which you were corrected about earlier with the Britannica quotation;

1. You have not demonstrated that these are Phoenician, as opposed to Greek, Roman, or Arab;

2. You have also ruled out more likely explanations without cause, such as:
* They could be rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
* They could be part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
* Or, rubble from another military event.
* It could be the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
* 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.

1. Herod's port is irrelevant to this discussion; it is not evidence of anything about Tyre. Herod's port was in Caesaria, not in Tyre, and you have not provided any reason for Herod's port sinking, although we know that it sank only 100 years after it was built;

2. You have no demonstrated any "major fault line", nor have you connected the Tyrian ruins to the faultline;

3. you have not ruled out the other far more likely and historically plausible explanations for the material underwater;

4. you have not explained the contrary evidence - evidence that could not exist, if such an earthquake happened;

5. The existence of a fault line does not imply sinking; if it did, then it would be proof that Seattle and Los Angeles have both sunk;

In short, your "Tyre sunk" scenario makes about as much sense as blaming space aliens for your broken porch window, when there is a baseball laying on your front porch with broken glass all around it.

Apparently you aren't reading your own source. Berrigan's site clearly identifies where the old city of Tyre was located.

1. Tyre looks like a perfectly normal peninsula to me - of course, if you disagree, please provide a definition of "normal", along with a list of your sampling methodology and criteria for determining normality;

2. Silting has occurred on the peninsula - that has been stated about two dozen times now. And since the original causeway was artificial, there's nothing unusual about that. Any residual assertion that the peninsula does not "look normal" can be attributed to the silting action, as Casper already told you earlier.:

Tyre is an excellent example of a batholithic peak. As the shoreline ebbs and flows, the entire silt cycle crawls down the coast. When it gets to a reflection, it piles up. Some places have to dredge to prevent their piers from becoming little peninsulas, creating little coves further down the beach.

The original builders probably encountered either a small island or a small peninsula, perfect for defense, and even more appropriate, a natural pier to get the fishing boats out there further. Adding layers of habitation, as well as constantly fighting the erosion process, only helped the little rock stay above the waterline over centuries. Why would it sink? You would have to dredge just to keep it from being overtaken by beach shift. The only thing really affecting its elevation is hydrostatic rebound of the tectonic plates between ice ages, and we aren't even close to going back that far to have more than a meter or two difference.

It never sank. If it did, there would be no way for it to re-emerge, especially after the medieval warm period.

3. Doesn't look like Florida?

* The peninsulas of Iceland do not resemble Florida. Does that prove it sunk?
* The Crimean peninsua does no resemble Florida. Does that prove it sunk?
* The Kenai peininsula in Alaska does not resemble Florida. Does that prove it sunk?
* The Greek peninsula does not resemble Florida. Does that prove it sunk?

You are creating imaginary criteria whenever you need them, to rescue your prophecy. Do you think God is proud of your behavior?

Nonsense. The siege of Tyre by Alexander and/or Phoenician ruins? Very obscure - unless you happen to be an aficionado of that era.

1. Who says they don't know about them? You? And why should we use your level of knowledge as a barometer of the current level of information about Tyre? If these Tyre threads have shown us *anything*, it's the fact that lee_merrill tries to stay as uninformed as possible with regards to Tyre. In light of that, you can't really state what tourist agencies know, or don't know, can you?

2. The fact that a dig may have occurred does not automatically mean that the dig is open to tourists, lee. I realize that rely on tourist sources because they're easy for you, but the reality is that the more delicate the dig area is, the less likely that hte tourists will be allowed to visit it. Not only would a dig in Tyre be hard due to the fact it is underneath the present city, but the whole issue of "who is a real Phoenician" is a political and cultural taboo in Lebanon at the moment. For that reason, a dig into Phoenician ruins is dicey. A fact that was brought to your attention already - via the National Geographic article on Phoenicians - but which (predictably) you chose to forget again.

1. Tourist question already answered.

2. The Jidejian book dates from considerably earlier. The 1996 date is a reprint date or a transfer of ownership.

You continue to have the burden of proof reversed.

Oh, my. What a lot of new words we are learning: "details"; "proof", "records". It would be even nicer if you would stop speculating, and provide "details", "proof" and "records" of your own, in support of your multiple what-if scenarios.

This site you quoted says nothing of the sort. If you think it does, then feel free to provide the quoted text that you think supports the claim that the siege was of the mainland.

Johnny Skeptic

You stated your arguments only superficially, not in the detail that is required for serious debates. You mentioned the ontological argument as evidence, but there isn’t one specific ontological argument. In Google, there are millions of articles about ontology, and lots of them speak about God’s existence, not his nature. You never quoted even one since ontological argument. I will not do your homework for you. I assume that since you continue to refuse to quote your sources on ontology, either you haven’t studied ontology, or you do not have confidence in the sources that you studied.

Regarding “there are multiple ways to know God's true nature; some in the Bible, some from reason,” please state your multiple ways, including reason, and we will debate them one at a time. You once said that personal experience is an important part of your belief system. I would like to debate that as well. A new thread would be best, but I predict that you will refuse to debate your personal experiences because you already know that they subjective and speculative, and not reasonable provable. People of other religions claim similar experiences, so what make yours any different?

I have come to know you as an evasive person whenever you know that you are in trouble. Your failure to elaborate on your ontological argument and your personal experiences are two good examples.

You have never stated credible evidence that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, and that the version that we have today is the same as the original version. It is not at all difficult to prophesy after the fact, and it is not at all difficult to alter writings. These practices have been commonplace in history, so why should the Bible be an exception? How do you propose that we judge whether or not various writings of antiquity were prophetic, and whether or not they were altered?

It won’t do you any good to tell me to go back and search through hundreds of posts in other threads. If you aren’t interested in restating your arguments, as least for the benefit of new readers, then I will assume that you do not have confidence in your arguments.

It is common courtesy to restate and requote arguments, especially for the benefit of new readers, but you have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you are not courteous. I, and other courteous people, are always willing to restate and requote prior arguments upon request. You must not believe that defending the Bible is important enough for you to restate and requote your arguments.

Johnny Skeptic

But even if you win your debate with Farrell Till, it won't do you any good if you can't reasonably date the prophecy and reasonably prove that it has not been altered. These are basic requirements that must be fulfilled regarding any prophecy. Otherwise, you are only debating ordinary secular history which is ultimately meaningless from a Christian viewpoint. Even if I concede for the sake of argument that you have defeated Farrell Till, you still lose if you can't reasonably date the prophecy and reasonably prove that it has not been altered.

dongiovanni1976x

This quote of mine, I believe was addressed to Johnny Skeptic because I think that Ezekiel 29:17-19 provides enough evidence to say that Ezekiel’s prophecy regarding Tyre was made PRIOR to the conclusion of the thirteen year siege. If you are asking for evidence that this prophecy was made DURING the 13 year siege I have just as much as you do that it was PRIOR to its beginning. Regardless, my point was to establish the highly probable fact that this prophecy was made BEFORE the events which are forecasted- score one for the Bible.


You can skirt this issue anyway you like but the fact remains that the prophecy WAS directed against the CITY of TYRE.

The prophecy is directed against the city of Tyre and its people. Its walls, towers and houses would be scrapped away and cast into the sea, its people would be slaughtered- even those daughter towns (i.e. suburb areas under the protection of the Tyrian throne such as Ushu), its riches would be plundered, the city would be laid waste and lost forever.

For the prophecy to be fulfilled, the city of Tyre, which means the portion that contains the religious and administrative centers and palace of the king of the “greedy” Tyrians who gloated at Jerusalem’s fall (see Ez 26:2), must be submerged except for a bare rock jutting out in the midst of the sea…a place that fisherman will unbeknowingly lay fishnets upon to dry, be uninhabited, never rebuilt and lost forever.

dongiovanni1976x

If the island broke of from the causeway and sank as Gleason Archer suggests then the Sidonian Harbor and the Tyrian wall would both be underwater with the island. But the Tyrian wall and the Sidonian harbor are NOT underwater and in fact are visible to this day.

Lee’s only objection to this fact is that some tourist websites do not mention this wall, though they do mention the harbor. And one historian overlooks this find when discussing several thousand years of Phoenician history, and perhaps making no updates to her 1969 book.

So since Luke mentions at least five women at the tomb, while Mark refers to three, Matthew to two, John to one and Paul to none at all, we are then to assume, according to Lee’s logic, that Paul is right? Or could it be that the sources I cite are correct and Lee’s tourist sites and one historian have simply overlooked this one fact? Given the reliability of these tourist sites I don’t think it is a stretch to assume the latter.

Lee’s objection is no different than saying that since some McDonald chains don’t specify whether the pickles that come with “their” Big Mac sandwiches are pickle spears or pickle slices, then we are forced to conclude that those which do in fact specify that their Big Mac’s contain pickle slices cannot be considered conclusive. While it is possible that some chains offer pickle spears instead of pickle slices it is not very probable since there is not evidence for such an option with the Big Mac, whether through McDonald’s websites or armchair historians of the burger joint itself.

Truly the apologetic phrase, “An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is germane. For simply because Nina Jidejian and a few tourist websites overlook this find and are thus “absent” with regards to evidence for it, it does not mean that the wall isn’t there- especially since the many scholars who cite the wall as well as those which I saw standing in its breached area, provide the actual evidence in this case.

Obviously, Tyre did not break off from the causeway. The Sidonian Harbor and the Tyrian Wall stand as solid testimony to this undeniable fact. Even if the Bazaar that Sachara visited at the Sidonian Harbor did not sell pickle spears OR pickle slices.

Regards,
Mark (DonG.)

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, I agree, yet if one prophecy in the Bible failed, that means the Bible is not God’s infallible word.

You have posted this! I have then replied with questions, so all this is under discussion and to restate your claim is not then to demonstrate it. And how is it that the wall is under the Roman and Greek levels? The wall was at the level of the sea, so then how did these other layers get on top of it?

Why then does Jidejian not call them part of the causeway? Yes, the harbor is underwater, according to the archaeologists, and this is not evidence that other parts might have sunk? I think this disproves your point, instead of proving it. X sank, therefore Y probably didn’t?

Well, here is one reference: “In Herod's day, the Caesarea port was considered one of the most modern in the world. With time, the port sank to a depth of five meters below sea level.”

I am arguing that some earthquake or other (though I don’t pinpoint the year) may well have caused the island fortress part of Tyre to sink.

It need not run right through Tyre, though, yet it does run down the coast.

Yes, I agree, though silting and water erosion tend to smooth outcrops, but I agree that this is not a strong reason.

So then we have ruins on a sunken island next to current-day Tyre? Why then do we conclude no part of Tyre could have sunk, with Phoenician buildings on it?

Yet how often are such earthquakes recorded, in ancient history? It would seem, not very often, we must not expect these historians to be modern-day geologists!

What I am saying, though, is that such evidence would be of great interest for them, so then them not speaking of Phoenician walls indicates either

1) They don’t know of them
2) They know of them, and decided not to tell people

Now I assume your position would probably imply number 2, for it seems to me unlikely that tourist agents are not keeping current with the archaeologists doing their searches there.

These all mentioned the wall? I think not. And also Jidejian, did not mention the wall, copyright 1996! So then this leads me to believe that Jidejian knew of this wall, and a tourist website that mentioned Sachara’s jetties did not mention the wall, either, so my conclusion is that the archaeologists have changed their minds here. Scientists do change their view!

Yet some of the quotes are different from the first edition, and some quoted statements from the first edition are on different pages in the second edition, so it seems safe to say she did some non-trivial updates.

Yes, this conclusion by Jidejian is why I adopted my second position, in the previous Tyre thread. I am now trying again, my first position, so I argue that Jidejian is mistaken, as it seems you must do as well, though on a different point, the point about the walls.

So then her conclusion about the wall is different? That would be my thought here, surely she must have known about it.

But how could Neb have kept them from drinking from their wells on the island? Not that islands are likely to have such wells…

And I agreed!

And they wouldn’t think to build more ships?

The point, however, is to examine implications of each view, and then if you get an improbable implication (that the Tyrians somehow could not build more ships), then we must consider the view that has that implication less probable.

No possibility of a 30-years war, is there? But if that is part of your homeland, why then people do get the idea that they should not give it up, even if fighting is costly, somehow they do get this idea. Sidon up the coast was besieged for three years, for example.

So they are just making their statements up? I would expect instead, that they are not doing the work of the archaeologists, but rather listening to what the archaeologists find.

How many scholars agree with your view, though, and how many disagree? And I had not heard of the siege being a siege of the island, until you mentioned it, and I still find this view unlikely, it even has no prima facie case, as far as I can see.

That would be a claim, now I need to see it established! I would tend to think Jidejian is not just flimflamming people.

Yes, certainly, but even in your own view, they made it through this profound impact for 13 years.

“No wages/reward” is what was said, actually, which would then mean no profit, I would expect.

Actually, I only conclude your view is improbable, and thus I mention possible scenarios, which I consider probable, to show why I think the wall is not Phoenician.

And you even seem to agree with my conclusion in your next statement:

Lee: “I would think they would be tempted to elaborate, so then a lack of such claims would tend to indicate no good evidence at all, would it not?”

Don: “I would agree with you. It seems logical that this would be the case.”

So then some part of Tyre did really sink? And what if that contained the island fortress, given that it is somewhat uncertain that Woodward’s wall is Phoenician?

I like Gullwind’s ripostes! I would say in reply that “never found” means not the location, but the city/trading center, as in “I lost my house in a fire” need not mean you don’t know where it was standing before.

Quite so, for by this logic, every major city was doomed to fall by Neb’s hand. Well, no…

You did not mention “no American ruins below ground where the current city is,” though, you and Jack did leave that out, that was the part I meant that you left out.

I do remember this, I also remember they were doing soundings to determine where they were, implying they had not found them yet. No report of this by now would indicate they did not find them.

Why, by the way, do you continually sneer at people who disagree with you? It makes it rather trying, to read your posts, I must say.

But you know all these things happened? You are making an affirmative claim here, so you have the burden of proof, which I now am requested to see said proof. What evidence do we have that another military event had a siege there, in which they tossed materials into the sea?

Nor have you demonstrated that any ruins you apparently claim are Phoenician are not Greek! So where is your demonstration? But we have to take the estimate of the archaeologists here, it would seem.

A port sinking in such a way as I argue that the Tyre fortress sank has no bearing on the discussion? It shows that such sinkings indeed do happen, is my point, and also that they happen along the fault line that runs along the coast of Tyre.

I posted a map to it in the other thread, have you forgotten?

Well no, I am estimating what is most probable, no one can absolutely rule out the other view here.

I’m not sure what you mean here, though.

Well yes, that must prove it was there! And not on the island of Hercules. Which island also proves by your estimate that no part of Tyre could have sunk?

Yes, so why hasn’t this rounded out the corners?

They do, actually. And the larger-scale areas would not be expected to erode and silt up so much, so different shapes there are not so unexpected.

I would expect they would mention them if they know of Phoenician walls! Really now, why must this be explained and defended?

Now that’s a good point, I agree. I also expect they would still mention the presence of such ruins, surely tourists are not allowed to clamber over all the Roman rocks, either.

I see no reason at all to stop digging, because someone claims they are Phoenician, and some dispute that claim. By this logic, no one would mention the Phoenician pottery they have found! But they do mention the pottery.

Your claims do not need to be defended? But the first claim was Farrell Till’s, so all the burden of proof is on him?

“Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years.”

Sure, I agree, and yet I am not going to argue every point about prophecy in every thread!

I agree! So then what is most probable? That Nina didn’t know about Phoenician walls? Or that she thought it incidental to the topic of her book? While putting in photos of such Roman ruins?

Regards,
Lee

Gullwind

And how would they do that?

They are in a state of war. They are cut off from their normal sources of supply and income. To build ships you need timber, which is not plentiful on the island (its not big enough), so you have to go and get it elsewhere. Every ship bringing timber is not bringing in supplies for the city.

Of course, they could try to buy some ships, but that puts more of a strain on the economy, which is already strained because of the war. They very likely might have built a few ships, and perhaps purchased some as well, but a city under siege is not going to be able to do that for very long.

That may well be a reason why they capitulated after thirteen years. It took that long for the supply crisis to catch up to them.

But "lost" has meanings that "never found" does not. Plus, if it meant the trading empire, it would have said the trading empire. It is referring to the city, becoming desolate, no longer inhabited, submerging completely, never returning, being no more. Do you really think all those descriptions refer to the trading empire and not the city?

This brings up an interesting point. These two points (sinking and never found) are both in the same part of the prophecy (Ezekiel 26:19-21). Yet Lee is arguing that the sinking part refers to the physical city, but the never found part refers to the intangible trading empire.

What part of the text indicates the switch in meanings, Lee? Why does one refer to the physical city and one not?

dongiovanni1976x

So what are your questions that I have no answered and how do they affect the plain and simple fact that the breached wall and Sidonian harbor were part of the ancient island and are still visible today?
Peter Woodward walked DOWN into the wall level, which was BUILT at sea level, and you could see in the background ABOVE the Roman Promenade which has a fixed position in the “city excavation” area that I described.
Lee, over the years of continuous habitation cities accumulate debris, dirt and other materiel. This kind of stratification should be apparent to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of archaeology.
I don’t know. Email her and ask her. If every scrap of Tyre was in the sea except for the Sidonian harbor the prophecy would still be false Lee. I do not see your strategy here. You need to address why the Sidonian harbor is still in use to this day. You need to address why there are buildings scattered all over the area surrounding this harbor and why Sachara enjoyed shopping at the bazaar area near this Sidonian harbor. You don’t need to be wasting your time arguing how some debris got into the water.
This is evidence that other parts may have sunk, yes. But even if it was conclusive proof that other parts have sunk, how does it account for the northern harbor that is still in use to this day? You are supposed to be making your case for why the island broke off and fell into the sea and had the waters cover it as the prophecy said (Ez. 26:19) And from what you have said earlier you are not arguing that the island was submerged and RE-surfaced but rather broke off and was lost “never to be found again” (Ez. 26:21). You are barking up the wrong tree here unless you demonstrate that the Sidonian harbor was NOT apart of the original island. But sadly, as I quoted your favorite historian, Nina Jidejian, this case is already a closed to her:
You are equivocating my analogy. To refresh your memory, the analogy was “So because X never mentions Y, Z was misled?” This was in reference to what you said about Sachara being misled into believing what she saw was the breached Phoenician wall. Here is the conversation in its entirety:
Sachara says she saw the wall, I saw Peter Woodward standing in it and I have quoted archaeologists and historians who account for its location and existence. So your conclusion that Sachara was “misled” based upon the premise that the wall isn’t mentioned in some unrelated source begs the question: “So because X never mentions Y, Z was misled?”
Lee if you don’t take this out of context you will see what I said was:

I was NOT asking you for evidence of some unrelated port sinking, I was asking for why this was related to Tyre. When you say, “Herod's port sank, at which time some conclude Tyre-the-island sank also” – what is your evidence for THIS because I cannot find any, nor can I find anything referring to Tyre in the source you just provided.



Based upon what? If the Sidonian harbor, which we know was on the ancient island even by the mouth of your own favorite historian, is still in use to this day why would you even be barking up this fruitless tree?
So you have none. OK, thank you. But still why are you expending this much effort on this point. If Tyre did sink, the Sidonian harbor would NOT still be in use to this day. This seems pointless Lee…seriously. You are so much more fu to argue with than Richbee was because you actually write back to what I post but what good would it be if by some miracle you did find evidence that an earthquake caused part of Tyre to sink and that is why the Egyptian harbor is under water? What does that matter if the Sidonian harbor is ABOVE water and in use to this day??? This strategy of yours baffles me.
Yet another example of why you are a better debater than Richbee. I will gladly concede again, as I did earlier, that your point that the Egyptian harbor and the Island of Hercules being under water is evidence that other parts may have been as well. I think we are making progress here Lee.
When have I ever conclude that no part of Tyre could have sunk? It seems obvious that part DID sink and to this day remains underwater. After 1291 it is likely from disuse that the southern part of the Island became submerged. If I ever led you to believe the contrary I apologize because this has never been my position. I believe that the Island of Hercules and the Egyptian harbor are presently underwater but that most of the island is not and has been continuously occupied.
I agree with you Lee that you would think that if they knew about the wall they would want to let as many people know as possible. But how am I to account for how often they visit the sites themselves, whether they have many to keep track off, how organized they have been after their recent civil war, how much internet access they have, how motivated their employees are, how knowledgeable they are, whether they fired their English speaking janitor that updates the homepage etc etc etc ad infinitum??? All I can tell you is that Sachara said she saw it personally and this is on a tourist webpage, I saw Peter Woodward standing in it and Dr. Badawi pointing out its construction standing next to it, and Dr.’s Patricia Bikai, Martha Joukowsky and H.J. Katzenstien recounting its finding by Dr. Frost. Your position that Sachara was misled must assume that I was misled, along with all these other archaeologists and historians. That just seems far too implausible to maintain and the longer you maintain it the further your credibility erodes in my mind and I must assume those others who are reading this thread. If I am being “misled” please point me to the light.
Peter Woodward was standing in the wall in 2004 Lee. Your position is untenable. There seems to be no evidence in your favor to support the theory that Nina Jidejian fully updated her 1969 work. The publishers may have made a new edition but Nina, having most recently written a children’s book, most likely did contributed nothing to it. You are clinging to her one book as if it is the Bible itself. While I do agree that she may hold the Bible in high regard herself, after reading her book in contrast to many other more objective scholars, I cannot tell you why she does not mention this wall. It is upon you to demonstrate why all the sources I cited and myself are misled- because I saw the WALL myself! I cannot stress how frustrating that is to convey to you. I saw Peter Woodward and native archaeologist Dr. Badwadi walking all around it! Dr. Bikai who did the most extensively published excavations in Tyre confirms the existence of this wall as of 1992. Dr. Martha Joukowsky, whom I have spoken via email, personally sent me her book which speaks of this very wall…Dr. Katzenstien mentions it in his epoch work as well – though dated 1973. Your stubborn resistance to accept this fact is astonishing.
But I repeat myself…So because X (a tourist website) never mentions Y (the breached wall), Z (Sacahra) was misled?
So if I went to Burger King and got a bacon double cheeseburger, but one of Burger Kings websites doesn’t mention that the bun is included, I am supposed to believe that I never ate the bun? C’mon Lee!! You aren’t even reaching any straws to grasp at!
Paperbacks are different from hardbacks from time to time Lee. Page numbers are not always consistent. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate what updates she did. And even if she did any it doesn’t do much for your case given that I have freaking SEEN this wall myself. What is your address, you want to borrow a copy of the DVD? It might be worth your time to view it for yourself. Email Dr. Badwadi, Dr. Joukowsky or Dr. Bikai, they can vogue for this find. In all respect, and I say this with a smile on my face, you are a stubborn fella Lee. I have to admit that. I consider myself a skeptic but I feel that there are times when evidence supports a position that makes it “beyond REASONABLE doubt” and this is a perfect case. Unless Dr. Joukowsky, Dr. Bikai and Dr. Katzenstien were suckered into a Scheme by members of Opus Dei and their fanatic monk produced the documentary I viewed and paid off the host Peter Woodward and Dr. Badwadi then…well wait also the tourist must be explained too…well this is getting deeper that the Da Vinci Code here…
So now she is mistaken. So I assume you want to give up on the whole thing about the wall not being mentioned in her book? You are just “trying out” positions…are you really looking for the truth or “what you can prove”? This seems pointless, why are you wasting my time? I thought you actually believe this stuff…are you just playing devils advocate? Because I can understand that but I would prefer to do it with a topic that isn’t so one sided Lee. What is your goal here? I feel like you are being intellectually dishonest and using me as a research guinea pig. Do my feelings have any justification?

dongiovanni1976x

On this particular point I was simply stressing that “others” is really a single source, and that single source was a tourist website and as I have demonstrated numerous times, these tourist websites have incorrect data on them (i.e. the one that Hiram was said to be responsible for creating Alexander’s causeway) They are not scholarly and thus need to be viewed as such. You “expectation” that these tourist websites (which again all refer back to ONE tourist source) were “listening to what the archaeologists” found is not only inconclusive but is highly speculatory. Their knowledge and sources are not evident but their motives are. A scholar’s motivation is much different from a tourist website, not to mention their knowledge and expertise on the subject.
My objection on this point was simply to point out how misleading it is for you to say, “Jidejian and others” blah blah blah as if to give more credibility to Nina Jidejian which you yourself have discredited by saying You need to sit still when you argue Lee your position(s) are so self-accommodating that it is difficult for others to see what your goal is…we already have discussed the goalpost issue once...lest we go over it again...

Please tell me what it is you want to argue and what sources you actaully believe...

dongiovanni1976x

Many sources decribe how reliant Tyre was on Ushu for its timber industry and how Solomon got his Temple built by this famous cedar trees...the very tree on Lebanon's flag to this day.
Excellent points Gullwind, The island had no timber industry to speak of whatsoever.:notworthy: