Jack the Bodiless

Those ruins nevertheless occupy an island which is supposedly underwater. Yet I don't see fish swimming around them.

BTW, "Greco-Roman" describes a period which extends right back to Alexander's conquest of the island (and apparently he didn't use submarines or scuba gear to do this, nor are there accounts of the victorious Greeks drowning shortly afterwards).

Can you find ANY non-apologetic source which says that the island of Tyre disappeared beneath the sea? This would be big news to the Lebanon tourist industry, which still believes that the former island is there (and, of course, its current inhabitants).

funinspace

Well, yeah...how else could Atlantis carry on trade if there wasn't another city to great their yellow submarines...

Oh, never mind carry on the...uh...mhhm...oh debate, that's it, on fulfilled <hehehe> fulfilled prophecy.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But of course!

Well no, they might be … pictures of the remaining causeway…

Wait! If coastal areas in and around the Mediterranean do sink, then how is what I am proposing so impossible?

But Greco-Roman ruins imply buildings built by Greeks and Romans! As I have heard, it was Alexander who scraped the island of Tyre down to a rock … like somebody said would happen.

There does seem to be such a source describing ruins underwater ("Tyre Through the Ages," Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers), which would provide some evidence that the island sank into the sea.

Regards,
Lee

noah

--Well no, they might be … pictures of the remaining causeway…

I don't think so Lee. Any picture I have seen of Tyre makes pretty clear that Tyre is not the remains of a causeway. Why don't you develop this argument further and say Masada is gone now and all we see of it is the ramp up to it that was built by the Romans?

--If coastal areas in and around the Mediterranean do sink, then how is what I am proposing so impossible?

Because we are talking about the prophecy and not the natural process of land and coastal erosion which the prophecy did not cover. The prophecy was specific. It was Nebuchednezzar who would take and permanently annihilate the city.

--But Greco-Roman ruins imply buildings built by Greeks and Romans! As I have heard, it was Alexander who scraped the island of Tyre down to a rock … like somebody said would happen.

The prophecy was that Nebuchednezzar would take and destroy the city for ever never to be seen again.The prophecy was not about Alexander.

--There does seem to be such a source describing ruins underwater ("Tyre Through the Ages," Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers), which would provide some evidence that the island sank into the sea.

Some sinkage, if there was much at all, would still not accomadate the prophecy's specification that Tyre would never be seen or rebuit again ever, having been destroyed utterly, forever, as a result of Nebuchadnezzar's assault on the city, which you and I know failed.

Finally what are all the maps referring to if not Tyre/Sur? The Lebanese seem to think the city is still there. They have at least one tourism page devoted to it. Surely they think something more than the centuries old vestiges of a causeway are there.
--

lee_merrill

Hi Noah,

I won't insist in every instance that this is the case! "They might be," I meant to be asking, "Isn't it possible?" And could you tell us more specifically what it is that indicates to you that a given picture could not possibly be a causeway?

But being covered by the sea was mentioned:

Ezekiel 26:19-20 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, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit…

So this is actually confirmation of the prophecy, and "many nations" were said to be involved at Tyre, which could well include Alexander.

But where are the Phoenician ruins above ground? If they don't seem to be there, and if we see ruins underwater, then this would indeed confirm that Tyre will not be rebuilt! Or seen again.

Yes, the coastal city, extending out into the ocean, has been rebuilt, that was considered part of Tyre too, though not Tyre proper, according to my understanding, when the island fortress existed.

Regards,
Lee

noah

Thank you for your reply.



I would say from the outset that you are, like it or not, conceding this argument You are using words like might, could and possible frequently now. When we talk about word of god prophecy we expect %100 clarity and precision. Agreed?

No room for debate or apologetics.

Ezekiel was crystal clear about three things:

a) Nebuchadnezzar would take the city.� Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon……, (26:7)

b) Tyre would be permanently destroyed, wiped from the face of the Earth.

c) The city would never be rebuilt: "and be no more forever"
(27:36)"and shall be no more forever" (28:19). These quotes are crystal clear and so should we be.

Ezekiel 29:18-19 admits his failed prophecy. In fact, god offers Nebuchadnezzar compensation for his defeat at Tyre, the land of Egypt.



Farrel Till quotes a couple of reference works:



The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, Vol. 10, 1978) said this in reviewing the long history of Tyre:



... and in 585-573 (B.C.) it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (p. 223).



In its summation of this same period of Tyrian history, The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 27, 1984) says:



The neo-Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success (p. 331, emphasis added).



----And could you tell us more specifically what it is that indicates to you that a given picture could not possibly be a causeway?----



The pictures I am looking at right now as I write show a wide causeway which leads up to a much larger, round piece of land with houses markets ruins, a wharf etc. In short, I am looking at a tennis racquet and not a ruler, if you will.



-----But being covered by the sea was mentioned:
Ezekiel 26:19-20 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, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit…-----



Yes. It was mentioned. But Tyre is not covered by water. It is there. In fact, I did a little googling on Tyre and discovered that many people believe it is not covered in water. For example, I found an architect/urban planner who has put up his plans for a building in Tyre, weddings held at Tyre and a convention held at Tyre. Nor is there any mention in the history of Tyre of the sea swallowing it up.

----But where are the Phoenician ruins above ground? If they don't seem to be there, and if we see ruins underwater, then this would indeed confirm that Tyre will not be rebuilt! Or seen again.-----

The Phoenician ruins do not have to be above ground to prove the existence of Tyre. Cities develop and change. The land beneath them changes as well.
The ruins are just a chapter in Tyre's history. Their presence above or below water does not prove Tyre's non-existence. In any case there are a few Phoenician ruins above water in Tyre today, at least according to the Lebanese Tourism Board.

-----Yes, the coastal city, extending out into the ocean, has been rebuilt, that was considered part of Tyre too, though not Tyre proper, according to my understanding, when the island fortress existed.----

Do you see the word rebuilt Lee? The prophecy was never rebuilt. Any part of it. Total permanent destruction. That was the prophecy. Tyre is now a city in the shape of a tennis racquet extending out from the coast to the sea. Look at a map. Go to the Library and research the subject.



----So this is actually confirmation of the prophecy, and "many nations" were said to be involved at Tyre, which could well include Alexander.----

No. It could not include Alexander. Alexander took the city in 333 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar tried and failed 585-573 B.C.E.
Is it "many nations" or is it Nebuchadnezzar? The prophecy was and is unequivocal; Nebuchadnezzar would take the city and annihilate it forever. The composition of Nebuchadnezzar’s army is not the point. If it consisted of many nations then the prophecy was wrong again.

Finally, the fact that there was a Tyre for Alexander to assault proves that the prophecy was false

Regards,

John A. Broussard

Note that this is now a Tyre rethread.

noah

Ouch!

lee_merrill

Hi Noah,

I'll have to give a response tomorrow, but just a word about my style, I do say "might" and "I think" for a reason, not because I'm wondering about my conclusions, though! It's to try and pull people with the comments I make, instead of pushing them.

Since I've noticed that making loud noises makes people stop their ears...

Regards,
Lee

noah

Very wise Lee. I shall bear that in mind. See you tomorrow.