Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

" Moreover King Hiram was himself a builder. He enlarged the island portion of Tyre by filling in the shallower regions of the sea around, and this NEW LAND he laid out in squares of PALACES AND TEMPLES" www.publicbookshelf.com

Island portion. Proof for my argument, not for yours.

Quote:

"Originally Tyre was populated on the mainland.....When Hiram came to power (969-936) he brought massive changes....he joined the two islands together....He not only built the royal palace, but great temples to Melkart and Astarte." www.ancientworlds.net

You dishonestly left out this part from your citation:

Quote:

Originally, Tyre was populated on the mainland, with the island of Tyre just offshore and a much smaller island between the mainland and the larger island. The city was just a minor community and, in fact, had to be founded and re-founded by Sidon.

The mainland was just a minor settlement - as everyone here has been trying to tell you. Hiram built up the island - that was the great city of Tyre, the financial and economic powerhouse that would become famous.

Quote:

"The island itself is said to have been created by Hiram...Hiram linked the two Ambrosian isles to create his city..." www.timesonline.co.uk

Yep. So what? The island was the city, the mainland was not. Again: proof for my argument, not for yours.

Are you perhaps under the sad misconception that if the mainland was settled first, it must be bigger? Doesn't work that way, you know.

Quote:

Hiram built island Tyre around the 10 century. Herodotus says that this city was founded at the same time the temple went up at 2750 B.C.? Which is ofcourse not correct because Hiram constructed this temple in the 10th century. If this is true then where was the original palace and temple?

What makes you think there was any previous palace and temple? It plainly says that the mainland settlement kept failing and needed to be re-started by Sidon.

Quote:

On the mainland. Island Tyre was an etension of PaleoTyrus, when the new city went up the old city still remained.

There was no "old city". Your own source says that the mainland was a colony of Sidon that kept failing. More like an outpost or a colony.

Quote:

This is the city Neby attacked and conquered. :wave:

Wrong.

makerowner · 01-21-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: What evidence do you have that the Tyre prophecy was not made before the events, or that it was made before the events and was not later revised?

It is obvious that Tyre prophecy is fraudulent because God did not tell Ezekiel about Alexander, .

You neglect the fact that God told Daniel about Alexander. Oh wait, the book of Daniel is a self -fulfilled prophecy, er, it was written after the fact, no it was written before and then revised after. . .

No, it was written quite a bit later than Alexander. Even if Daniel were a genuine prophecy, that still wouldn't help the Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel, which doesn't even mention Alexander.

Darklighter · 01-21-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Mr. Darkwater, verse 5 reads It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea (note nets are spread in the sea). Meaning that this shall be a place mainly for fishing its main economic activity (which has come true). Tyrus consisted of two locations. The mainland and the island. Now compare this with verse 14 "And I will make you like the top of a rock: you will be a place to spread nets UPON, you shalt not be built no more." It is a known fact that the inhabitants who live on the causeway are largely fishers who dry their nets on the mainland after they have spreaded their nets IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA. In fact both Sur and those who live on the causeway are largely fishing sites. Even the Britannica admits this. God did not say that Nebby or the other nations would destroy Tyre completely, these sites will be destroyed when he bury it in the sea. The fact that God predicted that Tyre would be a place for fishing before its ultimate destruction, proves that He does indeed exist, and is watching His Word come true. And so are we. :wave:

Mr. SweetNLowHitperson, you're telling me that Ezekiel predicticted that a Mediterranian coastal town would someday support fisherman!!! WOW! That changes everything! I'm a beliver again!

All kidding aside, your view of the term "spread nets upon" is on shakey ground. I can't remember the source, but i remember reading a while back that that term doesn't necesserily imply fishing, but rather a wide open flat area (dry) for spreading out nets to untangle and repair, which makes sense given the wording, i.e. bare rock. Either way, you're unconvincingly nitpicking history to fit your world view. Also keep in mind that "In the midst of the sea" does not mean "In the sea," it merely means "In the middle of the sea", that is to say, "surrounded by water" as in *AN ISLAND*.

However, are you saying that this prophecy hasn't been completely fulfilled yet? If so I can't argue against that. But it doesn't help your case at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Mr. Darkwater I will encourage you to look at verse 19 closely God says that he will make Tyre desolate and uninhabited when he bury it deep beneath the sea. Now if this is referring to the mainland this is an obvious contradiction because in verse 14 this site is a bare rock it is not there and certainly not a city. The mainland city is the only part of Tyre that was turned into a bare rock...literally. This judgement is against the island. Because one cannot be a bare rock to spreads net upon (on) and be buried beneath the sea at the same time. Common sense is what is needed here. adios

Ok, so, the prophecy against the Island hasn't come true yet. Gotcha.

I encourage you to re-read my post and re-read the prophecy. It CLEARLY covers the Island Tyre and her "settlements" in ONE jusdgement. To say otherwise is adding things to "God's Word" that wern't there to begin with.

You do realize you're doing the EXACT same thing proponents of Nostradamus do to show that his "prophecies" always come true as well, right? Would you defend him with the same zeal? They've found some amazing parallels between his quatrains and historical events. Does that mean we should all jump over and worship whatever the hell he worshiped? No. Common sense tells us that with sufficiently vague wording you can "predict" anything. And if nothing has yet happened that suits your interpretation... just wait. Eventaully something will happen.

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: What evidence do you have that the Tyre prophecy was not made before the events, or that it was made before the events and was not later revised?

It is obvious that Tyre prophecy is fraudulent because God did not tell Ezekiel about Alexander.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You neglect the fact that God told Daniel about Alexander. Oh wait, the book of Daniel is a self-fulfilled prophecy, er, it was written after the fact, no it was written before and then revised after.

Why do you insist on making so many off-topic posts.

Sorry, I was merely pointing out that God never gave a full relevation to any prophet but spoke to many prophets throughout Israel's history. Anyway you explain that either prophecy is wrong, self-fulfilled, or if it is correct it was revised after the fact, how convenient. You also neglect the fact that according to Jewish law the penalty for being a false prophet was death. In fact IIRC Yeshua was accused of being of false prophet and was executed for this very reason. Do you think Ezekiel had any concerns about being labeled a false prophet? Or is Ezekiel just another forgery? You have so many excuses it's hard to keep them straight.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-21-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Joshua mentions this city as being on the coast along with Ramah.

No, it does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Seeing that in 500 B.C. if this fortress existed on the island, why does the book of Joshua have it in the wrong place along side Ramah? Hmmm.

...Except that it says nothing at all which would indicate that Tyre was on the coast (rather than on an island just off the coast, as indeed it was). So why try to pretend otherwise? Hmmm.

BTW, the Tyrians would also have owned some lands on the mainland (farms etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Tyrus consisted of two locations. The mainland and the island.

Congratulations, you have just admitted that Ezekiel was a false prophet!

Ezekiel very clearly stated that Nebby's army (and he was very specific about that: HIS army, not somebody else's army) would breach the walls of Tyre and rampage down ALL the streets of Tyre.

ALL the streets.

That must include the streets of the ISLAND.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:7 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people.
Ezekiel 26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field; and he shall make forts against thee, and cast up a mound against thee, and raise up the buckler against thee.
Ezekiel 26:9 And he shall set his battering engines against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
Ezekiel 26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wagons, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
Ezekiel 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets; he shall slay thy people with the sword; and the pillars of thy strength shall go down to the ground.

This never happened. Complete failure!

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

[Congratulations, you have just admitted that Ezekiel was a false prophet!

Wow, I guess you just proved that Ezekiel was executed because that was the penalty for being a false prophet according to Jewish Law. Do you have a record of this?

Darklighter · 01-21-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Joshua mentions this city as being on the coast along with Ramah.

No, it does not.

...Except that it says nothing at all which would indicate that Tyre was on the coast (rather than on an island just off the coast, as indeed it was). So why try to pretend otherwise? Hmmm.

BTW, the Tyrians would also have owned some lands on the mainland (farms etc).

Congratulations, you have just admitted that Ezekiel was a false prophet!

Ezekiel very clearly stated that Nebby's army (and he was very specific about that: HIS army, not somebody else's army) would breach the walls of Tyre and rampage down ALL the streets of Tyre.

ALL the streets.

That must include the streets of the ISLAND.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:7 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people.
Ezekiel 26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field; and he shall make forts against thee, and cast up a mound against thee, and raise up the buckler against thee.
Ezekiel 26:9 And he shall set his battering engines against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
Ezekiel 26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wagons, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
Ezekiel 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets; he shall slay thy people with the sword; and the pillars of thy strength shall go down to the ground.

This never happened. Complete failure!

Nice. Those vs. also back up my assertion that the judgement was against BOTH the island and the mainland. But you'll never convince someone to see the truth if they refuse to let go of their pre-concieved notion of what the truth should be. It's sad really...

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

But we KNOW that this "bare spot" could NEVER have been more than a small part of Tyre.

Because we know where Tyre actually WAS.

...Or do you really think Alexander goofed and attacked the wrong target?

Ancient conquerors were often stupid as rocks. Just ask sugarhitman.

After all, he thinks that Nebuchadnezzar marched all the way from Babylon to attack an ISLAND empire and neglected to consider the need to cross the water.

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The royal palace was not on these small islands, until Hiram joined them together, then he built the royal palace. The point I am making is that some people have been falsely led to believe that before Hiram Tyre was a island fortress. It was not.

No one is requiring that the island city existed before Hiram.

The point is that by the time of Nebuchadnezzar, four centuries after Hiram, Tyre was an island city.

Quote:

Hiram created this into a city in the 10th century. (there was a small population on the island, but it was no city). In the book of Joshua ch.19 100s of years before Hiram was concieved the borders of the land of Asher: "And the border turned to Ramah AND THE FORTIFIED CITY OF TYRE."

The book of Joshua is much younger than that.

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What historical evidence is there that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events? The correct answer is, none at all.

Your side is arguing both sides of the issue, you claim that the prophecy was written after the destruction of Tyre

NO.
HE.
ISN'T.

What he is asking you for is proof that it was written before the events. It's YOUR claim. It's YOUR job to prove it.

It isn't his job to argue that it was written after; he has made no claims.
He who claims, has burden of proof.

Quote:

and your buddies claim that the prophecy is innacurate. Why would the prophecy be inaccurate if it was written after the event? Well, er, uh. . .

Because the book of Ezekiel was written over a long period of time. Part of it before the siege of Tyre; and part of it afterwards.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.