Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You see ladies and gents supportes and crits. The island city of Tyre did not become a major city until Hiram combined two small islands and built temples and the royal palace on this site in the 10th century. It was not a fortress city during these days. In the book of Joshua Fortified Tyre is clearly located on the coast along with the coastal city of Ramah. When Hiram constructed the island city Old Tyre still remained on the mainland, it is the Mother city. This is the city which Nebby attacked and conquered. This is the city Ezekiel predicted would be attacked by Nebby. Because all the weapons mentioned by Ezekiel are land based weapons and useless at sea (unless ofcourse his horses could run on water). The prophecy is 100% accurate which proves....the existence of God

But since you have not reasonably proven that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events, the accuracy of the prophecy is irrelevant. What you need to do is start a new thread about a prophecy that has been fulfilled that everyone agrees was made before the events.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-21-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

No it isn't. "Fortified Tyre" is the island fortress (with its 150-feet-high walls).

When do you imagine the Book of Joshua was written?

From here:

So are you saying that the island fortress existed before Hiram?

I'm saying that the island fortress existed before the Book of Joshua was written. Who cares about Hiram, or exactly when the city of Tyre became the fortress of Tyre? Certainly the island fortress existed by Nebby's time, which is why they were able to hold him off for 13 years!

If Tyre had been on the mainland, it wouldn't have stood a chance against Nebby's army.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 09:41 AM

THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE TYRE PROPHECY WAS MADE BEFORE THE EVENTS. THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPHECY IS ACCURATE IS IRRELEVANT.

I will repost that 1,000 times if necessary. Anyone can predict the future after the facts. That might have happened regarding the Tyre prophecy. If a follower of another religion came to this forum, and claimed that a certain prophecy came true, what would be the point of wasting lots of time debating whether or not the prophecy came true when the issue could be much bettter settled by first debating whether or not the prophecy was made before the events? Under such a scenario, would sugarhitman use my approach, or his approach? Obviously, even though he hypocritically criticizes my approach in this thread, he would use my approach in order to save time and bring the debate to quick conclusion if the person could not reasonably prove that the prophecy was made before the events.

If the Tyre prophecy cannot be reasonably proven to have been made before the events, I suggest that we move on to a prophecy that can be reasonably proven to have been made before the events.

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE TYRE PROPHECY WAS MADE BEFORE THE EVENTS. THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPHECY IS ACCURATE IS IRRELEVANT.

I will repost that 1,000 times if necessary. Anyone can predict the future after the facts. .

You claim the prophecy was written after the fact. Why would anyone write an inacurate "prophecy" after the fact? Your arguments are absurd.

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So are you saying that the island fortress existed before Hiram?

I'm saying that the island fortress existed before the Book of Joshua was written. Who cares about Hiram, or exactly when the city of Tyre became the fortress of Tyre? Certainly the island fortress existed by Nebby's time, which is why they were able to hold him off for 13 years!

If Tyre had been on the mainland, it wouldn't have stood a chance against Nebby's army.

If their was no palace on the island before Hiram (yes it was Hiram who built the palace on the island) And the island city was constructed during his reign, how can the island be the mother city? Joshua mentions this city as being on the coast along with Ramah. If the book was written at the time you say it was why are the locations of the city different? 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. Its nice how critics determine when books are supposedly written to fit their veiws. The fact is the Book of Joshua is an very ancient book, and there was a mainland city of Tyre, the Mother city. Oh by the way mainland Tyre didnt stand a chance against Nebby. You know that rubble Alex used to build his causeway? That was mainland Tyre, courtesy of Nebuchadnezzar. :wave:

spin · 01-21-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

sugarhitman. First, you are not answering my questions, but trying to make counter offers. Please just answer the questions. Here they are again:

Why were all the other Phoenician cities built on island, but you think Tyre, which was founded by Sidon, was not?
Why would the central city of Tyre be on the land if there was an island off the coast that they could inhabit and thus be safer from siege?
Why does Hiram king of Tyre say to Solomon, "do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber, which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island"? (Josephus, AJ 8.2.7. See also 8.6.3)
Why does Josephus tell us that Hiram "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them", Contra Apion 1.17, if Tyre was on the mainland?
Where were "Old Tyre"'s harbors?
Why did Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each besiege Tyre a few decades after the other, if they had each conquered the city and dominated it? Was it not because Tyre was an island and it came to an accord with each king from the safety of that island?
What did Nebuchadnezzar do against the inhabitants of the island for the 13 years?
Why does Ezekiel say, "King Nebuchadnezzar made his army labor hard against Tyre... yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor he expended against it", 29:18?
Why does Ezekiel refer to the mainland possessions connected to Tyre as the "daughters on the land", if "Old Tyre" was on land?
Why does Ezekiel refer to Tyre as being in the midst of the sea, 27:32, if it was not an island?

Can you just answer the questions?

And I have asked you before, when you cite something be meaningful in your citation. Give the exact source otherwise you are giving nothing. Is that clear? Your half-ass citations are worthless, for there is no way to understand who is saying what in what context from what sources.

After doing a google search for your quote, I discover it was written in 1913, a beginners guide to history called "The Story of the Greatest Nations and the World's Greatest Events", written before much was known of Tyre and its relations with Assyria and Babylon. Scratched as a source. You have to do better than that.

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.

There is neither logic nor evidence here. It is assertion based on your understanding of the opinion of someone else you haven't read. All you have is a web page. Here again is the actual source of the subject:

Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. Josephus, Contra Apion 1:17.

This shows your assertion is not correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The point I am making is...

That you can't answer the questions before you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

... that some people have been falsely led to believe that before Hiram Tyre was a island fortress. It was not.

Can you see your error now that you have the source text?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Hiram created this into a city in the 10th century. (there was a small population on the island, but it was no city).

You have no evidence for this empty claim. You are simply crapping on. Josephus contradicts you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It was not.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." Ramah was an ancient coastal city, sharing the coast with fortified Tyre...the coastal city.

Using the same logic I guess you'll want to claim that "great" Sidon, in the previous verse, was also not an island. Obviously, both Tyre and Sidon are points of reference, nothing more. Your logic is very poor, sugarhitman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And as for as my sources not having sources.

A pure lie. You haven't even been near the book. You merely got the name of the book from the web page you were cribbing from. This gets a "fail" for plagiarism in high school.

Will you please start to answer my questions now and stop trying to evade the issue?

spin

Darklighter · 01-21-2008, 10:26 AM

Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to post all of Ez. 26 (NIV):

Quote:

1 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,' 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.

The writer is CLEARLY speaking about the island here, as is evidenced by the fact that Ezekiel tacs on the "settlements" in vs. 6. Sugar, the BIBLE itself is calling whatever is on the mainland "settlements," not a "city". The wording of vs. 1-5 make it plainly clear that Ezekiel is speaking of the ISLAND CITY and not the "settlements," again, by the fact that he makes a distinction between the two. And the distinction is clearly geographical NOT chronological. Only in vs. 6 is our attention turned to the mainland.

Continuing...

Quote:

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar [a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you.

Again, the wording indicates judgement against BOTH the island and the "settlements on the mainland." As I said before, "settlements" do not equal "city", Ezekiel cleary realized this.

Quote:

9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

First part bolded: While I guess you could say that this part applies to Alexander scraping up the ruins of the "settlements" and dumping them into the sea, it certainly makes more visual sense to think of an island city as toppeling into the ocean. Not a big risk on Ezekiels part. But again, the wording appears to be directed at the main island. "I will make you a bare rock" makes more sense if referring to an island "in the midst of the sea." The second part I bolded speaks for itself. The fact that "Tyre" (in any form) still exists is extremely devastating to the 'divine' source of this prophecy.

Quote:

15 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Tyre: Will not the coastlands tremble at the sound of your fall, when the wounded groan and the slaughter takes place in you? 16 Then all the princes of the coast will step down from their thrones and lay aside their robes and take off their embroidered garments. Clothed with terror, they will sit on the ground, trembling every moment, appalled at you. 17 Then they will take up a lament concerning you and say to you:
" 'How you are destroyed, O city of renown,
peopled by men of the sea!
You were a power on the seas,
you and your citizens;
you put your terror
on all who lived there.

18 Now the coastlands tremble
on the day of your fall;
the islands in the sea
are terrified at your collapse.'

Such lamenting would be quite the overreaction in light of the fact that Nebby failed to take the MAIN island city and Tyre quickly recovered after Alexanders attack.

Quote:

19 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place [b] in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."

The second part I bolded, again, only makes sense if referring to an island. The rest of the wording indicates that "Tyre" (in any form) will no londer be inhabited. The very fact that "Tyre" (in any form) can TODAY be "sought" and "found" (and visited, and lived in, and has a fracking mayor) proves the prophecy false.

There's no need to split historical hairs, Ezekiel 26 speaks for itself.

Tyre proves god does not exist. :wave:

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

sugarhitman. First, you are not answering my questions, but trying to make counter offers. Please just answer the questions. Here they are again:

Why were all the other Phoenician cities built on island, but you think Tyre, which was founded by Sidon, was not?
Why would the central city of Tyre be on the land if there was an island off the coast that they could inhabit and thus be safer from siege?
Why does Hiram king of Tyre say to Solomon, "do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber, which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island"? (Josephus, AJ 8.2.7. See also 8.6.3)
Why does Josephus tell us that Hiram "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them", Contra Apion 1.17, if Tyre was on the mainland?
Where were "Old Tyre"'s harbors?
Why did Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each besiege Tyre a few decades after the other, if they had each conquered the city and dominated it? Was it not because Tyre was an island and it came to an accord with each king from the safety of that island?
What did Nebuchadnezzar do against the inhabitants of the island for the 13 years?
Why does Ezekiel say, "King Nebuchadnezzar made his army labor hard against Tyre... yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor he expended against it", 29:18?
Why does Ezekiel refer to the mainland possessions connected to Tyre as the "daughters on the land", if "Old Tyre" was on land?
Why does Ezekiel refer to Tyre as being in the midst of the sea, 27:32, if it was not an island?

Can you just answer the questions?

And I have asked you before, when you cite something be meaningful in your citation. Give the exact source otherwise you are giving nothing. Is that clear? Your half-ass citations are worthless, for there is no way to understand who is saying what in what context from what sources.

After doing a google search for your quote, I discover it was written in 1913, a beginners guide to history called "The Story of the Greatest Nations and the World's Greatest Events", written before much was known of Tyre and its relations with Assyria and Babylon. Scratched as a source. You have to do better than that.

There is neither logic nor evidence here. It is assertion based on your understanding of the opinion of someone else you haven't read. All you have is a web page. Here again is the actual source of the subject:

Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. Josephus, Contra Apion 1:17.

This shows your assertion is not correct.

That you can't answer the questions before you.

Can you see your error now that you have the source text?

You have no evidence for this empty claim. You are simply crapping on. Josephus contradicts you.

Using the same logic I guess you'll want to claim that "great" Sidon, in the previous verse, was also not an island. Obviously, both Tyre and Sidon are points of reference, nothing more. Your logic is very poor, sugarhitman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And as for as my sources not having sources.

A pure lie. You haven't even been near the book. You merely got the name of the book from the web page you were cribbing from. This gets a "fail" for plagiarism in high school.

Will you please start to answer my questions now and stop trying to evade the issue?

spin

Many historians has Hiram building the Royal Palace and the temple Melkert during his joining the Islands together. All this shows still is that at Best Tyre became a Island city during the days of Hiram. In the book of Joshua this city is located on the coast. What does Josephus say about the contruction of this temple and the royal palace? History also has it that Hiram constructed the ports on the island. If so island Tyre is much younger then what the critics believe her to be. And seeing that you are using Josephus as a source. Do you also believe the accounts I mentioned earlier? Nah You will only (whats that word you used) cherry-pick what you think ids true.

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

JTyre proves god does not exist. :wave:

So in your opinion were the Tyre prophecies written before or after the fact?

sugarhitman · 01-21-2008, 11:07 AM

And note: Island Tyre was only half a mile wide and three-fourths mile long after Hiram enlarged it!! Before this it was smaller and there were no ports. So where were they on the Mainland! Do you believe that such things like ports and palaces could have existed on a small island that existed before Hiram enlarged it. No. The island city of Tyre begin with Hiram

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

01-21-2008, 09:41 AM	#83
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE TYRE PROPHECY WAS MADE BEFORE THE EVENTS. THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPHECY IS ACCURATE IS IRRELEVANT. I will repost that 1,000 times if necessary. Anyone can predict the future after the facts. That might have happened regarding the Tyre prophecy. If a follower of another religion came to this forum, and claimed that a certain prophecy came true, what would be the point of wasting lots of time debating whether or not the prophecy came true when the issue could be much bettter settled by first debating whether or not the prophecy was made before the events? Under such a scenario, would sugarhitman use my approach, or his approach? Obviously, even though he hypocritically criticizes my approach in this thread, he would use my approach in order to save time and bring the debate to quick conclusion if the person could not reasonably prove that the prophecy was made before the events. If the Tyre prophecy cannot be reasonably proven to have been made before the events, I suggest that we move on to a prophecy that can be reasonably proven to have been made before the events.

01-21-2008, 11:07 AM	#90
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	And note: Island Tyre was only half a mile wide and three-fourths mile long after Hiram enlarged it!! Before this it was smaller and there were no ports. So where were they on the Mainland! Do you believe that such things like ports and palaces could have existed on a small island that existed before Hiram enlarged it. No. The island city of Tyre begin with Hiram

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.